Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Kettering Gas Bill,

Bead the Third time, and passed.

London Local Authorities (Superannuation) Temporary Provisions Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Southern Railway Bill,

As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Bill [Lords],

Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (LINDSEY AND LINCOLN JOINT SMALL-POX HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND WANDLE VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ABERGAVENNY AXD NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Abergavenny and Newcastle-upon-Tyne," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEYTON) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Leyton," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SITUATION (MURDER OF BRITISH OFFICIAL).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the House the latest information he has as to the political situation in India?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will inform the House as to the latest situation in India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I regret to have to confirm the reports that have appeared in the Press of a further terrorist outrage in Bengal, where on Saturday Mr. R. Douglas, the District Magistrate of Midnapore, was shot while at a meeting of the District Board, and later died from his injuries. I understand that one of his assailants was arrested. I know the House will join with me in ex pressing the deepest sympathy with Mr. Douglas's relatives. Elsewhere, there has been little of importance to report during the last week. The position in Delhi, following the unsuccessful attempt to hold the session of Congress last week quickly returned to normal, and there have been no reactions elsewhere. One feature of the week has been attempts in various places to destroy letters in post boxes.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show that the dastardly murder of Mr. Douglas and the equally disgraceful attempt on Mr. Gibson, District Magistrate, are connected in any way with the Lahore and Delhi conspiracy organisations?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. I have no information further than that which I have given, but if I obtain more in connection with this matter, I will let the hon. Member have it.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the lives of these officials were threatened, and whether they were provided with some protection or guard of any kind?

Sir S. HOARE: I should like to have notice of that question, but I should say that there was a guard.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that, notwithstanding these regrettable incidents, the trade out look for this country is improving?

CONFERENCE.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India when it is proposed to call together the consultative committee of the India Round Table Conference for its second meeting; and the subjects which will be brought before this meeting of the committee?

Sir S. HOARE: The committee is to meet again on 23rd May. I am sending the hon. Member a statement of the agenda.

Mr. JONES: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any contribution is being made by the Indian States towards the cost of the federal finance and the States Inquiry Committee appointed to investigate problems connected with the working out of proposals for Indian constitutional reform?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer is in the negative.

OPIUM.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 6.
(for Mr. RHYS DAVIES) asked the Secretary of State for India whether any steps are being taken by the Government of India to reduce the sale of opium manufactured at the Government of India's factory at Ghazipur for consumption in India; and what progress has been made in limiting the number of shops in India from which this opium can be purchased?

Sir S. HOARE: The distribution and sale of opium in the Provinces of British India is under the control of Ministers responsible to their respective Councils. The amount of opium manufactured at Ghazipur for consumption in India depends upon the demand from the Provinces. There has been a substantial and progressive reduction in recent years.

RAILWAYS.

Mr. COCKS: 7.
(for
asked the Secretary of State for India the latest figures available of the route mileage of the Indian railway system; how much of this is mileage belonging
to State and company-owned systems, respectively; and the mileage of railway in India under construction during the present financial year?

Sir S. HOARE: As this answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The route mileage of the Indian rail way system on 31st March, 1932, was approximately 42,687. Of this,

17,692
miles were State-owned lines worked by the State.


14,232
miles were State-owned lines worked by companies.


6,459
miles were owned by Indian States and district boards.


4,304
miles were owned by companies.


42,687

The mileage under construction during 1932–33 is expected to be about 600.

CHINA AXD JAPAN

Mr. DONNER: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state the extent of the losses in life and property suffered by British subjects in the recent fighting in Shanghai; and whether any steps have been, or will be, taken to secure from the combatants adequate compensation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The full extent of the losses suffered by British subjects is not yet known. In addition to the action mentioned in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Sir O. Cayzer) on 11th April, His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai has been authorised to send to the Chinese and Japanese authorities a list of such claims as have already been received, and to reserve the right of His Majesty's Government to claim compensation.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not the case that the Municipal Council of Shanghai has a very comprehensive list of those claims?

Mr. EDEN: I think that that is so.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether he has accepted, on behalf of the British Government, the right of the Mixed Commission at Shanghai to decide by a majority vote when the Japanese troops are to leave Chinese territory?

Mr. EDEN: As I understand the position, the Commission will not have this power. The question of His Majesty's Government accepting it does not there fore arise.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that this Commission was to have power to submit certain matters to their respective Governments according to the vote of the Commission?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. The proposal that the hon. Member appears to have in mind does not form part of the resolution which has been approved by the Assembly.

Mr. MACLEAN: Has not that statement been made to the Foreign Secretary at Geneva; that both Governments would accept a majority vote of the Mixed Commission?

Mr. EDEN: I cannot discuss confidential conversations at Geneva.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that these matters are to be kept secret, that this House is not to know to what it is being committed?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Japan's delegate at the Assembly of the League of Nations has informed the president and the secretary of the Assembly that the Japanese Government would accept the right of the Mixed Commission at Shanghai to decide by a majority when the Japanese troops should leave Chinese territory; and whether that acceptance of the principle of neutral judgment has been conveyed to the members of the Mixed Commission?

Mr. EDEN: The attitude of the Japanese Government is not as represented in the first part of the question, and the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. MACLEAN: Has it not occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the Japanese representatives did agree and did inform the President and M. Huysmans that this was the decision
taken by the Japanese? Was that particular statement of the Japanese envoy conveyed to the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. EDEN: If the hon. Member will read my answer he will see that the Japanese Government did not give any such reply. I do not think we can discuss here what may have been said by one or other representatives.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to under stand from the hon. Gentleman that the representatives of the Japanese Government say things at the League of Nations that are not confirmed or endorsed by his Government?

Mr. EDEN: I have no responsibility for any individual members of any foreign Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

COMMERCIAL REPRESENTATIVES.

Captain RAMSAY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any of our commercial representatives in Russia enjoy all the same privileges accorded to concerns such as Arcos here; and, if not, will the Government take steps to place the facilities and privileges on exactly the same footing for both sides?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. and gallant Friend is, I think, under a misapprehension. Arcos, as a British registered company, enjoys no special privileges. If my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind the Soviet Trade Delegation in London, the position is that the head of the Delegation and his deputy are, like our Commercial Diplomatic Staff in Moscow, members of their respective Embassies, and, as such, commonly enjoy the privileges recognised by international law.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Are we to understand that our representatives in Russia are entitled to go about the country and see matters of trade in the same way as representatives of Arcos do in this country?

Mr. EDEN: Our representatives in Russia enjoy the same privileges as the Russian representatives enjoy in this country.

LENA GOLDFIELDS, LIMITED.

Sir W. DAVISON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inform the House of the result of the representations made in February last by His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow to the Soviet authorities with regard to the failure of the Soviet Government to make payment of the arbitral award of 22nd September, 1930, amounting to approximately £13,000,000, in favour of Lena Goldfields, Limited; and when it is expected that payment will be made?

Mr. EDEN: The Soviet Government have not made any offer of settlement of a nature which the company would feel able to accept, and the matter is now being further considered.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are we to under stand that the British Government do no longer consider it their duty to protect the property and rights of British citizens, seeing that this enormous sum, settled by an arbitral tribunal, has been owing for some years? Does not the hon. Member think that the British Government should take some active steps in the matter?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member is quite wrong in assuming that we take no interest in this matter—

Sir W. DAVISON: I said active steps.

Mr. EDEN: We are taking such steps as lie within our power. If the hon. Member will be good enough to put down a question in a week's time, I hope to be able to tell him the result.

Colonel GRETTON: Will the hon. Member explain what he means by the concluding words of his answer, "the matter is being further considered"? Considered by whom? By this Government or by the Government in Moscow?

Mr. EDEN: By His Majesty's Government.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Surely the present Government will use a little more energy than the late Socialist Government?

TRADE RELATIONS.

Mr. PETHERICK: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government propose to give
notice to terminate the existing trade agreement with the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and to negotiate a fresh agreement, with a view to equalising the present disparity of trade between the United Kingdom and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics?

Captain RAMSAY: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now ready to bring forward legislation in the shape of quotas, differentiating tariffs, or prohibitions to deal with the damage to our trade which is still being caused by the trade policy of Russia?

Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 26th April, of which I am sending them copies.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentle man aware that the great majority in the House support the suggestion made in this question; and can he inform the House what is the alternative method which the Government have had in mind for so long?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a very large pro portion of the people outside in the country who think at all, are opposed to the suggestion?

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Are we to wait until after the Ottawa Conference?

Captain RAMSAY: Is it not the fact that the leaders of the vast majority in this House said quite clearly, up and down the country, a short time ago that Russia's foreign trade policy amounts to economic war; and has any change taken place in that policy since then?

Mr. COLVILLE: In reply to all four supplementary questions, if my hon. Friends will examine the answer to which I have referred, and the supplementary answers which follow it, they will see that the Government are fully aware of the difficulties of the position and are determined that our trade with Russia shall be made to balance more nearly in the future.

Mr. THORNE: Are there not other countries in regard to which the trade balance is worse than that of Russia?

Mr. COLVILLE: In no other case does a country buy solely through the Government.

OIL (IMPORT, UNITED KINGDOM).

Captain RAMSAY: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many million pounds this country has paid over to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics in the last two years in respect of oil produced from wells in equity British-owned but confiscated at the end of the war?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The imports of oil from the Soviet Union during the years 1930 and 1931 were of a declared value of£5,691,709 and £4,099,740 respectively. It is impracticable to say how much of this oil was produced from properties formerly British owned.

Captain RAMSAY: As it is beyond question that a very large proportion of this oil was actually and is in equity British-owned, is it not possible for the British Government to take some steps to put a stop to the scandal of the British having to buy their own oil month after month?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA:: There are no means of identifying the particular wells from which the oil comes.

Captain RAMSAY: Surely there are other means of taking steps to collect money from a debtor who refuses to pay his debts and who has commodities?

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (LOANS).

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain from the League of Nations what measures the International Finance Commission pro pose in order to insure fulfilment of the Greek Government's obligations to British subjects in respect of the loan issued under the supervision of the League of Nations; and, if they are not in a position to insure fulfilment, will he take steps to protect British subjects from investing in loans on the strength of the support given to the loans by the League of Nations?

Mr. EDEN: In reply to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to him on 25th April. As regards the second part of the Question, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend matters of this kind should continue, in the future as in the past, to be left to the discretion of the market.

Mr. CULVERWELL: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what way the League of Nations safe guards the interests of investors who sub scribe to loans stated to be issued under the supervision of the League of Nations; and what protection is available to investors in the case of the recent defaulting Greek and Bulgarian loans?

Lord SCONE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that as a result of the recent defaults of loans issued under the supervision of the League of Nations British investors have suffered loss; and will he accordingly take steps to ensure that such investors, who subscribe to these loans in the belief that the League of Nations is responsible for them, are protected from similar future losses?

Mr. EDEN: The conditions on which these loans were issued were stated in the contracts drawn up and the prospectus published before the issue of each loan. The documents enumerate the safeguards provided, which include, in the case of Greece, the payment of assigned revenues to the International Financial Commission. His Majesty's Government recognise that it is a matter of the greatest regret that the Greek and Bulgarian Governments should find them selves unable to transfer in full the ser vice of the loans issued under the auspices of the League of Nations. I understand that negotiations are likely to be initiated by these two Governments with the bond holders, who are of course not confined to this country, and His Majesty's Government are watching the situation with a view to taking any action that may be possible or appropriate.

Mr. CULVERWELL: Is the hon. Member aware that many British investors have invested considerable sums of money in these loans owing to the misleading nature of the prospectuses, and does he attach any importance to the guarantee and authority for loans issued by the League of Nations?

Mr. EDEN: I cannot accept the hon. Member's description of the prospectuses as misleading. If he will study them he will find that they are clearly set out.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Has it not recently been stated by a former official of the League of Nations, Sir Arthur Salter, that these loans ought never to have been granted.

Mr. EDEN: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not the case that both Greece and Bulgaria are bankrupt, and that if they have to pay these loans they will have to borrow more money?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If the League of Nations lends itself to the issue of company prospectuses, can they be brought into court in the same way as company directors?

Mr. EDEN: I recommend the hon. and learned Member to study the prospectuses.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. LOGAN: 18.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will authorise the deletion of question 11 from Form M.P.I.F. 27; and will he state the present reasons for asking a man if he is in receipt of pension other than the disability pension and for particulars of all such pensions?

Mr. PRICE: 20.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will delete questions 12 to 18 inclusive from Form M.P.I.F. 27 in all cases where the pensioner is not in receipt of family allowances; whether his attention has been drawn to the objections pensioners have to the questions on the form; and if he will consult with the British Legion or some organisation representing pensioners with a view to modifying the questions?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The object of the form referred to is to secure the identification of pensioners. Inquiry for this purpose, which is made of a percentage of pensioners annually, was instituted to meet the ex press requirements of the Public Accounts Committee of this House, to protect the Exchequer against personation. The answers to questions 11 to 18 inclusive, in common with the answers to other
questions on the form, serve a necessary purpose in this connection, and I regret that I cannot agree to their omission.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

HUNGARY.

Mr. LEES-JONES: 21 and 22.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (1) if he is aware that traders in this country are unable to obtain payment of their accounts contracted prior to 1st February, 1932, with traders in Hungary without first delivering fresh goods to the value of the account being paid; and what steps he proposes to take to overcome this obstruction to the ex port trade of this country:
(2) if the Government were parties to, or informed of, the Anglo-Hungarian stand-still agreement?

Mr. COLVILLE: His Majesty's Government were not parties to the Anglo-Hungarian standstill agreement but have been informed of its contents by the British banking creditors. The agreement pro vides for a moratorium in respect of debts to British banking creditors till 1st August, 1932. It also stipulates that payments in foreign currencies to other existing creditors should be similarly suspended, subject to certain agreed exceptions, but it has been agreed that merchandise credits may be repaid, provided that they are replaced by credits of equal amount. The hardships caused to the various classes of Hungary's creditors arise from the financial position of that country, and, in these circumstances, effective action is difficult. As, however, I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) on 28th April, the matter is being carefully considered to see if there is any action that can be taken to ease the position.

DENMARK.

Lord SCONE: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will invite representatives of the Danish Government to a conference, with a view to arranging a commercial treaty whereby Denmark, in return for importing an increased quantity of British materials and manufactures, would become entitled to some of the fiscal advantages enjoyed by British Dominions and Colonies?

Mr. COLVILLE: As has already been made clear, negotiations of such a character could not in any case be under taken until after the Imperial Conference at Ottawa.

Lord SCONE: Is my hon. Friend aware that it will be a very considerable time before this country can produce enough bacon and other products to satisfy our needs, and, during that time, is not Denmark, a country consistently friendly to this country, much more worthy of our custom than the Irish Free State?

Mr. COLVILLE: His Majesty's Government will be glad to consider any proposal which Denmark may put forward after the Ottawa Conference.

Sir P. HARRIS: Are we to understand that no commercial negotiations can go on with Denmark, however willing Den mark may be?

Mr. COLVILLE: It has already been stated that no arrangements can be made which will stand in the way of our deliberations at Ottawa.

SITES FOR FOREIGN FIRMS (SCOTLAND)

Captain McEWEN: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is in Scotland a body corresponding to the Travel and Industrial Association of Great Britain with the object of attracting to the country those desirous of setting up factories?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There are a number of organisations in Scotland, such as the Scottish National Development Council, the Edinburgh Development Committee and the Development Board for Glasgow and District, which have for their object the general development of that country and its manufactures. Discussions are in progress amongst some of the more important of these organisations with a view to the definition and co ordination of their respective functions.

Captain McEWEN: Is the hon. Gentle man satisfied that these bodies which he has mentioned are co-operating satisfactorily at the present time, and, if not, is he prepared to take any steps to pro mote such co-operation in future?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my answer indicated that co-operation was in progress.

SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY

Captain P. MACDONALD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what are to be the terms of reference of the committee that is to investigate the sugar-beet industry; when this committee is to be set up; whether it will supersede the investigations now being carried out by a depart mental committee into this question; and whether he will consider the desirability of instructing this committee to inquire not only into the question of home-grown sugar, but also into the best method of evolving an Imperial sugar policy?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The matter is under consideration, and a statement will be made in due course.

Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when his statement will be made?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I have said, in due course.

CANADIAN TARIFFS.

THORNE: 47.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any in formation with regard to the imposition of tariffs in Canada against imports from Great Britain; what are the alterations; and in what way they will affect our exports to Canada?

Mr. COLVILLE: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the recent Canadian Budget. The Budget proposals, whilst not introducing any alterations of the ordinary Canadian Customs duties, increased the special "Excise" Tax which is leviable on imported goods from all countries from 1 percent. ad valorem to 3 per cent. ad valorem. The Sales Tax was also increased from 4 per cent. ad valorem to 6 per cent. ad valorem, but except in a few instances this tax is applicable to both imported goods and Canadian goods.

INDUSTRY (ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT)

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 48.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the industries for whose benefit tariffs have been imposed are efficiently organised and managed; and, if not, whether he proposes to set up a committee or committees to inquire
into the conditions of such industries as the Government consider require re organisation?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of securing that tariffs are not used as a shelter for industrial in efficiency. But they see no reason for setting up committees of the kind suggested, as the Import Duties Advisory Committee already have this aspect of their work under review.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact, having regard to the difficult circumstances of the time, and the ordeal through which British industries have passed in the last several years, that in efficiency they can compare favourably with the rest of the world?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We are giving them the conditions in which they should become efficient.

Mr. MACLEAN: In the event of any inquiries being made by the Tariff Committee as to the efficiency or inefficiency of these industries, who will be the deciding factor in determining whether a particular industry is so inefficient as to require the removal of the tariff put on to protect it?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There are ample sanctions vested both in the Committee and in the Government for securing the efficiency, wherever it can be secured, of British industry.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Do we understand the hon. Member to suggest that the Advisory Committee, with their multifarious duties, are also to be the arbiters as to whether or not an industry is efficient?

GRANITE (IMPORT DUTY)

Mr. BURNETT: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the placing of a higher importation duty on fully-manufactured granite than upon the raw material, with a view to protecting the product of the home monumental worker against the competition from the imported finished article?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): Under Section 3 (1) of the Import Duties Act, 1932, additional duties can only be imposed on
the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, to whom any representations should be made by the interests concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

EGGS (MARKETING).

Mr. LEWIS: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the benefits of the national-mark scheme for eggs are greatly diminished owing to the widespread practice among retailers of mixing eggs of different grades before sale; and will he consider what remedies should be applied to get over this difficulty?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I am aware that it is the practice of some retailers to mix eggs of different grades before sale, and am advised that it can be dealt with only as part of the larger issue involved in the sale of eggs by weight or statutory grade. This larger question is one for consideration, in the first instance, by producers, in relation to any plans which they may be preparing for reorganising the marketing side of their industry.

REORGANISATION COMMISSIONS

Mr. GLOSSOP: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the terms of reference of the milk reorganisation commission will be so framed as to consider the re-designation of the various grades of milk?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. Friend to the terms of reference of the Commission which I announced in this House on 18th April. The Commission will themselves decide on the scope of their inquiries in the light of these terms of reference, but I do not anticipate that they would regard themselves as precluded from considering the matter referred to.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: May I ask whether any milk reorganisation would not deteriorate the quality of the milk, unless the designations of this milk are altered?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As far as I am concerned, this commission will investigate the problem in all its aspects, and I think we must await that.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will instruct the re-organisation commission for the bacon industry as to the desirability of furnishing their report before the opening of the Ottawa Conference, so that data may be available for our representatives at that conference as to the extent to which Great Britain can become self-supporting in pig-products during the course of future years?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) and Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) on 21st April, of which I am sending him a copy.

MALTING BARLEY

Captain HEILGERS: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of quarters of barley used for malting in the United Kingdom during the years 1930 and 1931, and the number of quarters of home-grown barley used in each of those years?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is estimated that the equivalent in barley of the malt used for brewing and distilling in the years ending September, 1930, and 1931, was 3,695,000 quarters (of 448 lbs.) and 3,191,000 quarters, respectively. In addition, a certain amount of barley is malted for purposes other than brewing and distilling; for the average of the years 1924-1927 this was estimated at 325,000 quarters but no later estimate is available. I have no information as to the quantities of home-grown barley used for malting, in the years specified.

Lieut-Colonel ACLAND-TR0YTE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this barley was used for brewing British beer?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

Captain GUNST0N: What proportion of home-grown barley is used in brewing British beer?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will try to find the answer.

HOUSES (EXPORT)

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is
aware that, out of a consignment of three heavy draught horses which were shipped by the British steamship "Mersey" from Goole to Rotterdam, it was found on their arrival there on the 18th April that one had died en route and another was found to be suffering from such injuries sustained en route that it was necessary to shoot it immediately; whether he will state the circumstances under which the two horses sustained their injuries; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation prohibiting the export of such horses from this country abroad?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the two casualties referred to. I understand that the three horses were shipped it Goole on 16th April, after passing the usual rigid veterinary examination as to fitness to travel and to work. There was no indication that abnormally rough weather would be encountered. The vessel, however, met heavy seas, resulting in two of the horses going down in their stalls, about five hours after leaving port. The vessel was eased, but attempts to get the horses on to their legs were unsuccessful. Each horse was made as comfortable as possible with bedding and padded sacks. One horse died, but from information supplied by the shipping company, it appears that it was not injured in any way, and showed no sign of any suffering. The other horse showed signs of great excitement, and was then killed with the humane killer to prevent it from injuring itself. As regards the last part of the question, I am satisfied that the present legislation is adequate to prevent avoidable suffering.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is high time that we dispensed altogether with this miserable trade?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that the number of casualties arising out of the trade, under the present regulations, is comparatively small—only 44 out of 45,745 horses exported.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Government to give facilities to a private Member's Bill to stop this trade?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that the horse is an animal that Suffers extraordinary agonies from seasickness, and is it not desirable that the putting of horses on board ship should be limited as much as possible?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is the case under the present regulations.

GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY).

Mr. LEWIS: 29.
asked the Postmaster-General the amount paid to the British Broadcasting Corporation to date by way of opera subsidy under the agreement laid before Parliament in 1931; and has he received any assurances from the British Broadcasting Corporation as to the use to which the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate has put this subsidy?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The amount paid to the British Broadcasting Corporation to date is £31,250, namely, £5,000 for the last quarter of 1930, £17,500 in 1931, and £8,750 to date this year. As regards the second part of the question, the British Broadcasting Corporation assures me that this amount has been expended in strict accordance with the terms of the agreement referred to, and that no part of this sum has been used for paying off losses incurred by the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate before the subsidy was granted.

Mr. LEWIS: While thanking the Minister for the assurance, which, of course, I entirely accept, may I ask if he can give the House a further assurance that no part of this subsidy will in future be used for the purpose of making good losses that were incurred before the subsidy was originally granted?

Sir K. WOOD: I cannot contemplate that possibility, but I am sure that my hon. Friend can rely on the British Broad casting Corporation strictly carrying out the terms of the agreement, and to see that the opera subsidy is not used in the manner suggested.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Has the Minister power to stop this subsidy?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. The agreement in this respect was laid before Parliament.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Can the Minister say whether the accountants or other officials of the Post Office have access to the books of the British Broad casting Corporation?

Sir K. WOOD: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is there any ground for supposing that the British Broadcasting Corporation has been in any way using this money improperly?

Sir K. WOOD: Not that I am aware of.

Mr. WILLIAM HUTCHISON: Is there any chance of this subsidy being extended to such places as the Old Vic and Sadler's Wells?

Sir K. WOOD: Only by an amendment of the agreement which has already been agreed to by the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

LETTER DELIVERIES, SAUL, GLOUCESTER SHIRE.

Mr. PERKINS: 30.
asked the Post master-General whether he is aware that letters catching the 5.30 p.m. post from Chelsea on a Saturday are not delivered at Saul, Gloucestershire, before the second post on the following Monday, i.e., 3,30 p.m.; and whether, seeing that such letters take nearly 48 hours to travel 100 miles, he will take steps to improve this service?

Sir K. WOOD: A letter posted in Chelsea on a Saturday by the time stated should be delivered by the first post on the following Monday at Saul, Gloucester shire. If my hon. Friend will let me have the covers of any letters which appear to have been delayed, I will have inquiry made.

STAMP REPRODUCTIONS (ADVERTISEMENTS)

Captain CAZALET: 31.
asked the Post master-General whether he is aware that under existing regulations it is impossible to produce in public journals illustrations of postage stamps which form part of a stamp dealer's advertisement; and whether he will consider deleting the last sentence of paragraph 2 of Post Office Circular K 712, which deals with this question?

Sir K. WOOD: As I have explained in writing to my hon. and gallant Friend, the reproduction of any postage stamp is an infringement of the law; but under the conditions prescribed in the Post Office notice, reproductions are allowed in black and white to illustrate articles in philatelic or other publications. I regret that I cannot see my way to extend this concession to cover reproductions of stamps used to illustrate advertisements owing to the necessity of such restriction in order to check the manufacture and use of dies of postage stamps.

Captain CAZALET: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to this archaic regulation, many hundreds of pounds' worth of advertisements are going to foreign magazines which ought to go to magazines in this country?

Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry to hear it, but my hon. and gallant Friend knows the difficulty. If he would like to discuss the matter further with me, I shall be glad to do so.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (DISCHARGES)

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 32.
for
asked the Post master-General the total number of men who have been discharged from the engineering department of the Post Office in Scotland, England, and Wales, respectively, since September, 1931, and the number that have been discharged from the Scotland West district during the same period; what proportion of the total number are ex-service men and the proportion of ex-service men from the West Scotland district; whether the discharges are permanent or temporary; and the number of foremen in each case who have been discharged?

Sir K. WOOD: During the period 1st October, 1931, to 31st March, 1932, 820 men in England and Wales and 44 men in Scotland were discharged from the engineering department. No men were discharged in the Scotland West District. Information is not readily available as to how many of the men were ex-service men or whether any foremen have been discharged. The discharges are permanent, though it may be possible to re engage some of the men in the future.

Mr. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentle man give any reason for the discharge of such an abnormal number of men from this Department in so short a time?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes; I shall be glad to communicate the reasons to the hon. Gentleman.

SKY-WRITING.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: 33.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will grant facilities for a short demonstration of sky-writing by searchlight to take place in Palace Yard so that Members of Parliament may have an opportunity of viewing this new invention?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): If those interested in the promotion of sky-writing appliances care to approach me in regard to carrying out some such demonstration as my hon. Friend suggests, I am pre pared to consider the matter in conjunction with the authorities concerned, pro vided no charge will fall on public funds.

Mr. GLOSSOP: In further considering the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that he does not reflect on the sky any words which may give an indication that we agree to differ on the Beer Duty?

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (REPAIRS)

Captain NORTH: 34.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what is the total estimated cost for repairing the exterior of the Palace of Westminster; how much of this has been expended up to date; how the ultimate cost is likely to com pare with the original estimate; and whether it will be possible to effect any economy in this work either by accelerating or decelerating its progress?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is £750,000. This sum is substantially less than the original estimate of £1,060,000 which was prepared without full knowledge of the extent of the repairs necessary. The expenditure to date is £129,000. It is not considered that economy would be effected by altering the present rate of progress.

ST. MARY'S SHIPPING COMPANY, CARDIFF.

Mr. GROVES: 35.
asked the Attorney-General when the report of the inspector appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the affairs of the St. Mary's Shipping Company, Cardiff, was made available for inspection by the National Provincial Bank, and why such facilities were provided; and whether conditions were imposed to prevent the disclosure of its contents?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have no information that the inspector's report was ever made available for inspection by the National Provincial Bank, but I am in a position to say that no such inspection was given from official sources. In these circumstances, the last part of the question does not arise.

Mr. GROVES: If I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman evidence that this report was made available, will facilities be given to other interested persons to see it?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, the question was as to whether the report was made available for inspection, by which I understood the hon. Gentleman to mean, made available by official Departments?

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the report is available for inspection, whether officially or otherwise?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not aware of that. Two copies were furnished to the company in pursuance of one of the Sections of the Companies Act, but what was done with the copies is no concern of mine.

Mr. GROVES: Is it not unfair that the report should only be available to certain people, and is it not right that other interested parties should be able to inspect it?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Parliament has provided that copies shall be supplied to the company concerned, and one extra copy, at the company's request. That has been done, and that is the end of my duty in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

IMPORTED SHELLFISH.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether, according to the recommendation of the Fishery Committee, steps have been taken to require that shellfish imported from districts in the Irish Free State outside the counties of Louth and Meath shall be cleansed and sterilised before being landed here, so as to prevent risk of typhoid if used for human consumption?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): No steps have yet been taken to give effect to this recommendation. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to him on 13th and 18th April by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, with regard to the recommendations contained in the report of the Committee on the Fishing Industry.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: What is being done actually in the meantime to protect the public against the possibility of the contamination of food?

Mr. BROWN: My hon. Friend knows that he was given an answer on that point some time ago. He is also aware that in reference to the report on this matter, the Minister of Agriculture said that he was in consultation with the other Ministers concerned about the many recommendations in that report.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: But how does that prevent people getting typhoid from these shellfish? Consultation will not prevent the importation of contaminated food.

Mr. BROWN: Neither will unwise action.

Mr. HANNON: Has the hon. Gentleman received any complaints as to the possibility of these shellfish contaminating food in this country?

Mr. BROWN: My hon. Friend had better put that question down.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 37.
asked the Minister of Health what steps his Department takes to prevent the sale of imported polluted shellfish, in view of the fact that the powers for the inspection of unwholesome food operated by sanitary authorities afford no provision that
consignments of imported shellfish shall bear indications to enable those sanitary authorities to detect that consignments are unwholesome food?

Mr. BROWN: If polluted shellfish were imported, my right hon. Friend would communicate with the authorities of the exporting country, and, in the event of evidence of injury to health being caused by imported shellfish, he would not hesitate to make such regulations as might be necessary for the protection of the public health. The powers of local authorities under the Public Health Acts have in a number of cases been used to prevent the sale of shellfish from polluted layings, and these powers apply equally to home produced and imported shellfish.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Do I understand by that reply that the hon. Gentleman. takes no steps until the health of the people has been injured?

Mr. BROWN: My hon. Friend must not understand anything of the kind. He must understand that under Section 116 of the Public Health Act the authorities may inspect and examine fish, and seize it, if it appears diseased, unsound, unwholesome or unfit for the food of man.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I beg to give notice that, in consequence of the very dangerous nature of the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, I shall raise this question on the Ministry of Health Vote.

CLINICS, WITHINGTON AND CRUMPSALL.

Mr. POTTER: 39.
asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange for an early visit of inspection to the clinics for contraceptive advice in Withington and Crupsall hospitals; and if he will make the report, when issued, available to Members of the House at an early date?

Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend will obtain a report on this work from the local authority and will then consider whether an inspection is desirable. He could not undertake to adopt the suggestion in the second part of the question, but he will communicate with my hon. Friend in due course.

POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS, YORKSHIRE (EX-SERVICE RESIDENTS).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 38.
asked the Minister of Health the number of ex-
service men who are residents in the Poor Law institutions of the public assistance committees in Yorkshire?

Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend regrets that this information is not available.

Mr. ADAMS: Whatever the numbers be, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he cannot devise some means whereby these ex-service men, to whom the community is under an incalculable obligation, may spend their lives in less humiliating circumstances?

Mr. BROWN: I will bring my hon. Friend's point to the notice of the Minister.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Captain NORTH: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Committee on National Expenditure, which reported in July last year, were obliged to make their investigations in haste, he will consider the desirability of reconstituting a similar committee in the near future in order that the possibilities of further economy in national expenditure may be examined in greater detail?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's premise. The committee was appointed in March and reported in July. Its inquiry, though expeditious, was quite sufficient as a guide to the Government: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend in particular to paragraph 40 of its report. The Government will overlook no opportunity of securing all possible reductions of public expenditure, but for the reason I have given I do not agree that the appointment of another committee similar to the committee of last year is required.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. LAWSON: 49.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet received the Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance; and, if not, whether he is yet in a position to state when he is likely to receive the Report?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am afraid I cannot add
to the reply I gave last Thursday to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).

EDUCATION (COST).

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he can ascertain and state the average annual all-over cost to the State of educating the elementary child in France and Germany and England and Wales, respectively, during the past two years?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): Figures for the year 1931 are not yet available, but for 1930 the expenditure per child on elementary education, incurred by the National Exchequer, was £7 3s. 4d. in England and Wales, about 443 francs in France, and about 100 reichsmarks in Prussia. The figures for the different countries are, for many reasons, not comparable, and they do not include any expenditure from local funds.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the hon. Member remember that the President of the Board of Education told us to keep our eyes on Czechoslovakia, and will he give figures for that country?

BRITISH ARMY (BEDDING CONTRACTS).

Mr. LEWIS: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office upon what date or dates the existing contracts held by the Eastern Counties Electric Carpet Beating Company for remaking bedding at certain stations in the Eastern Command will terminate?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): These contracts will expire on 31st March, 1934, unless terminated by notice at an earlier date.

Mr. LEWIS: Will my hon. Friend undertake that a serious effort shall be made, when the time comes for these contracts to expire, to find 'a firm that will observe the terms of the King's Roll to do this work?

Mr. COOPER: The firm in question is a very small one. It has never been the custom of any Department of the Govern-
ment to insist on the observance of the King's Roll Regulation in the case of very small firms employing a small number of hands.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Is it not time the War Office did insist on it?

Mr. COOPER: No, I do not think so. I think that in the case of firms employing only three or four hands it would be a monstrous thing to turn off those people and insist on their employing some disabled ex-Service men, to the detriment of people who have been in their employment for many years.

Mr. LEWIS: Would not precisely the same argument apply to big firms?

Mr. COOPER: No, certainly not.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it not the fact that in some cases the employés of these firms are women and not men?

Major THOMAS: Is it not a fact that in this particular matter it is not the case that only two or three men are employed?

Mr. COOPER: I believe the firm in question employs under 10 men and a few women.

PICCADILLY CIRCUS (EXCAVATIONS).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will inquire of the three authorities responsible and state the approximate date upon which the scheme for the alterations at Piccadilly Circus will be completed?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): It is expected that the work now in progress will be completed by the end of May. Re-surfacing of the whole area of Piccadilly Circus will probably be deferred until August and September, when it will cause least inconvenience.

Sir C. CAYZER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he is still impressed with the sense of well-ordered organisation, to which he referred last week, in the carrying out of this Five Year Plan?

Mr. PYBUS: Yes. This is a most difficult and complicated civil engineering problem, and I am still of the same opinion.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the street muddle of
the last six months at the Underground station in Piccadilly is regarded by the public as a test of his supervision and efficiency, and that the result may be a renewed public demand for the abolition of his Department?

Mr. PYBUS: Oh, no, Sir. I do not accept that or some of the previous statements made by the hon. Baronet. For instance, I have not yet detected his builder's yard in Piccadilly Circus.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

John Slater, esquire, for the county of East Sussex (Eastbourne Division).

Captain Alec Stratford Cunningham-Reid, D.F.C., for the Borough of Marylebone.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Major Llewellin; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Gibson.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Sunday Performances (Regulation) Bill): Sir Robert Gower; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Erskine-Bolst.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1932.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

(CLASS III.)

POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,906,025, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 81st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District; Bonus to Metroplitan Police Magistrates; the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police; the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary; and other Grants in respect of Police Expenditure including Places of Detention; a Grant in Aid of the Police Federation, and a Contribution towards the expenses of the International Criminal Police Commission."—[Note— £5,227,000 has been voted on account.]

Dr. SALTER: I should like to say, on behalf of those who sit on these benches, with what general satisfaction we heard the Home Secretary's statement when the Home Office Vote was before the Committee recently. I desire now to say something in connection with the administration of the prisons and the police. With regard to the prisons, no party issue is raised, but we want to put certain questions to the right hon. Gentleman and, in particular, to make a few suggestions for the humanisation of business conditions. [Interruption.] I did not realise that we were at the moment on the Police Vote. That, I take it, covers the Home Office expenditure in regard both to the Metropolitan Police and the provincial police. The cost of the provincial police borne on this Vote is about half the total expenditure on the Police Service. That means that the total cost of the police in England and Wales to the ratepayers and taxpayers together amounts to over £20,000,000 per annum. By last year's Economy Act there were cuts in expenditure, particularly in regard to the wages and salaries of police officers. The sum asked for in the Act
was £500,000. These cute, of course, created a certain amount of resentment in the force, as did similar cuts inflicted in education and other services. The police entered their protest in a constitutional form, and the sum was deducted.
I understand, however, that the position is that the Exchequer has actually obtained £700,000, or £200,000 more than was originally intended. I want to ask the Home Secretary whether that amount is to be refunded. What about the second year's deductions? Is there to be a revision in the scale of police pay in order that the extra £200,000 may be refunded to the officers concerned? I can assure the Home Secretary, from information I have received very reliable sources, that there is the greatest and practically universal dissatisfaction throughout the force on this subject, and we should like to know what arrangements the right hon. Gentleman is making for the Police Federation to discuss the matter with him. Is there to be a meeting of the Police Council to consider it? That council has met only once or twice during the last several years. It was constituted by the Police Act, 1919, and it is supposed to represent all the interests and sections in the Service. The complaint of the men, and particularly the lower ranks, is that it hardly ever meets at all. It is, in effect, the Whitley Council of the Police Service, and those councils are supposed to meet whenever necessary to discuss grievances, and particularly grievances relating to remuneration. I ask the Home Secretary to use his influence to ensure that the Police Council meets more frequently, if not actually at regular intervals, and we should also like to know when the next meeting is to be called, and an opportunity given to the representatives of the force to discuss this particular subject, namely, the refunding of the sum which has been over-deducted.
There is a further point relating to the grievance which the men feel in respect of the cuts. The Police Federation was brought into existence by Act of Parliament 12 years ago, and during that long period open meetings of the federation to discuss current subjects of interest have been held from time to time. Now, practically for the first time, open meetings have been forbidden. When the
Second Reading of the Bill was before the House in 1919, the then Home Secretary, Mr. Shortt, stated that this was a democratic organisation elected upon the broadest franchise. It was managed by the force itself, for them to confer exactly as they choose, and make any representations they like to the highest police authority. "We put it forward," he said, "as an organisation which we believe to be, and we ask the House to say is, amply sufficient to safeguard all that is necessary for the welfare of the police and to do all, indeed, that an industrial body, say a trade union, could do." That was a definite promise by the representative of the Home Office, and on that promise members of the force were asked to abandon all idea of becoming members of an ordinary trade union or establishing an ordinary trade union organisation among themselves. They were adjured to leave the existing trade union, namely, the Police and Prison Officers' Union, because they were told that the new Police Federation would do everything for them. Mr. Shortt himself said they could make any representations they choose, they could confer as they pleased, and do exactly as they would do if they were in a trade union affiliated to the Trades Union Congress.
Since then open meetings have repeatedly taken place, and speakers of all shades of political thought have attended them. Discussions have taken place in the presence of those representative public men, and such public men have made comments thereon as part of the general discussion. Lord Remnant, for example, certainly addressed one of the open meetings. The hon. and learned Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Cassels), another Conservative, also spoke. The hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) addressed one of these meetings, and so did the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), who is a Liberal and now adorns the Treasury Bench, and the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant), also a Liberal, and the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who was an Undersecretary of the Home Office. I would like to know what wrong any of those
Members has committed, or what wrong the Police Federation itself has committed in inviting them to take part in its deliberations, because apparently—at least, so it is stated in a certain journal— it is on the ground that meetings have been addressed by public men like Members of Parliament that they are to be banned for the future. The men are told now that if they are dissatisfied and disgruntled they can mutter among themselves, but it must not go beyond them. They may mutter, but must not openly express their grievances so that public men may listen to them and know what they are feeling and thinking, and in no case must they make public comment in connection with their special topical grievance in regard to the salary cut.
I rather fancy the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself muttered when he disagreed with his colleagues inside the Cabinet on the tariff policy, but he also demanded, and he obtained, the right to air his particular grievance in public, and has done so, and I understand he proposes to do so again. I put it to him, Where is the Liberalism, to say the least of it, of denying a free opportunity to the police to express their views when responsible public men are present? The Home Secretary goes one better than the Police Federation. He takes good care that he is well reported, that the Press are present when he addresses meetings, but the Police Federation have taken the step of excluding Press representatives, so that the meetings are practically not public meetings. They have been attended by public representatives such as those I have enumerated, but the Press representatives are not present. I think the Home Secretary ought to know, if he does not know already, that there is a strong feeling of resentment throughout the whole of the police forces over this refusal of the right of public meeting. These open meetings —I ought not to say public meetings— were actually begun and instigated by the Home Office itself 12 years ago, because at that time they wanted to get the Police Federation going and to ensure that it should become popular. They encouraged open meetings at the beginning, but now, because the men are dissatisfied and want to discuss the salary cuts—at least, that is the only ground, I assume, for the refusal—and it does not suit the Govern-
ment's purpose to let the public generally know that the police are dissatisfied, open meetings are prohibited, merely because the subject of discussion is one which is distasteful to the Government.
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that that is not a sufficient reason. As far as I can gather from information which I have received from various sources, Lord Trenchard, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has actually gone right outside his province in this matter, having attempted to interfere with open meetings outside the London area. He has no jurisdiction, I understand, over police forces in other parts of the country, but he actually refused to allow representatives of the Metropolitan Police to attend meetings called in some of the large provincial towns, although their representation was on a national basis and it was the national committee which had arranged those meetings. The committee were therefore responsible to the Home Secretary and not to Lord Trenchard at all, and I understand that after he had taken that unconstitutional action, which was definitely unconstitutional, the position had to be regularised by the Home Office, the right hon. Gentleman having to step in and confirm the action so far as it related to meetings outside the Metropolitan area. I should like to know very much whether that is the case. It seems to me that it is a very, very serious thing if an official has taken upon himself action of that character.
The whole basis on which this federation was established becomes farcical if opportunities for the men meeting in order to discuss their problems are definitely refused. You will not extinguish discontent and dissatisfaction by suppressing meetings and I should have thought that the Liberal principles of the Home Secretary would have taught him that free and open discussion of grievances was the best way to deal with discontent in the Police Force as well as in every other organisation. It is in the interests of the public service itself that discontent should not be allowed to smoulder underground and should have an opportunity of finding expression in a proper, orderly and constitutional manner. There is the keenest resentment in the Police Force all through the country on account of the Home Secretary's refusal to permit them
to hold open meetings, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the whole question and see whether he cannot allow the police to do what every other citizen has a right to do. Every branch of the Civil Service and the officials of all Government Departments from the heads of Departments down to the junior members are permitted to hold public meetings to discuss their grievances even with reporters present. The school teachers held large meetings last week to which considerable publicity was given, and the only people who are not permitted to hold open meetings are the police officers.
It is very desirable that the Home Secretary should not make an exception in their case, because it must lead to the spread of discontent if they have no opportunity of freely ventilating their grievances. Apart altogether from the police themselves, many people outside are asking why there are so many officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force in the Police Force. Men have been appointed to high and responsible positions who have no experience, training or knowledge whatever in the matter of crime detection or prevention. They may be excellent people, but they have no technical qualifications for those positions. They are just militarists and disciplinarians and nothing more. It seems to me that for positions of that kind you require initiative, intelligence, enterprise, and qualities the very opposite of those which win commendation in the Army, where blind and unquestioning obedience on the part of the common soldier is all that is asked of him. It does seem to me that the appointment of officers unaccustomed to organisation on these lines is not in keeping with what is required as far as the Police Force is concerned. We should like to know how many Air marshals, generals, colonels, majors, brigadiers, and other officers of the Services there are employed on the staff at Scotland Yard and whether it is intended to toe the definite policy of the Government to staff the police service with ex-officers of the Fighting Forces.
I pass from that subject to another source of dissatisfaction which, I understand, exists in the Police Force at the present time, and it relates to the Police Orphanage. The Board of Management is not representative of the paying mem-
bers of the service. The lower ranks are pressing for adequate and proportional representation having regard to their direct contributions. I understand that Lord Trenchard has refused this request, and I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider this matter. The board is absolutely top-heavy with assistant-commissioners, chief constables and superintendents whose contributions are negligible compared with those of the lower ranks who have only a small minority representation. Rumours have been going round that the orphanage is to be sold and turned into another training school or college for the police. Many of the officers feel keenly about the welfare and future of the orphanage and I invite the Home Secretary to make a statement on this matter.
I want to refer to the case of men in the Police Force who are killed while on duty. A member of the Metropolitan Police Force, while on duty, met with an accident on the river and was drowned, and his widow got a pension merely of £30 because the accident was held to be accidental. Another constable was killed while on motor patrol and his wife was paid a pension of £70 a year, because it was held that death in that particular case was non-accidental. No one in the Police Force can appreciate these narrow differences, and I cannot understand a differentiation of that sort. Apparently, this is entirely a misinterpretation by some official of the Department. My suggestion is that cases of that type are both anomalous and unjust, and distinctions of that nature ought to be abolished. I understand that strong representations in that direction have been made by the Police Council to the Home Secretary, but nothing has been done, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to meet the Police Council on that point. Everybody in this House and out of it, I am sure, regrets that in the circumstances I have mentioned the widow of a policeman should have to apply to the public assistance committee owing to a misinterpretation of the law by the Department concerned.
Another matter which has given rise to a great deal of criticism is the recent case in which a police constable at Ox-
ford was killed while on duty by a motor car driven by an undergraduate. I understand that the undergraduate was committed for trial and was acquitted, but up to the present nothing has been done in the way of compensation to the policeman's relatives. The police constable who was killed in this case happened to be a single man, but his father, who was a part-time signal man in a rural area, and mother were living in very poor circumstances, and they received nothing whatever from the Police Pension Fund, not even the amount which the deceased constable had had deducted from his weekly pay. The Oxford watch committee stick to this sum. If the policeman concerned, instead of having been killed, had been discharged for misconduct, the amount deducted from his contributions to the Superannuation Fund would have been returned to him. That seems to be an extraordinarily anomalous position which, I understand, is due to the interpretation of which I have complained.
4.0 p.m.
I gather that that decision was reached on the ground that parents must be wholly or mainly dependent on the son. These parents were dependent to some extent. They would certainly have become almost wholly dependent in the course of a very few years, because the father is an old man. If the case had been one which concerned a chief constable or one of the higher officers, ways and means would have been discovered for getting round the law and for giving a rather wider and more liberal interpretation to this particular Section of the Act. It has been done; we have definite information and can quote instances to the Home Secretary where it has been done in the case of higher officials. It has also been done in the case of certain officials at Scotland Yard. Throughout the constabulary of the country there is a very strong feeling regarding this particular case, which has attracted a good deal of attention in police circles, as have a number of other parallel cases which have occurred during the last two or three years. The right hon. Gentleman's personal attention to this particular matter is invited, in order that a somewhat broader and more
humane interpretation of the Section of the Act may be given by him.
Another small point that I wish to raise has caused a certain amount of disquiet and has led to correspondence in the police journals. Under the Road Traffic Act a policeman can exercise his discretion by cautioning a motorist without summoning him. When the Act was being discussed that particular Clause in it was generally welcomed by the House as a very wise provision. But there are some motorists who do not take at all kindly to these verbal cautions. I am informed that recently a motorist complained to the Commissioner that when he was being cautioned the constable entered the particulars in his notebook. It was not to the caution that the motorist objected, but to the fact that a record had been made of it in the policeman's official pocketbook. I am told that as a result of the motorist's complaint an order has been issued instructing the police that in future, when an officer cautions a motorist, the particulars are not to be entered in the notebook in the presence of the person cautioned. Apparently the constable has to memorise the index number of the car, the sex of the driver and other relevant particulars, and then as soon as the offender is out of sight he has to enter the details in his notebook.
Surely the making of a surreptitious entry of that kind is reducing the whole business to a farce. Why should the person cautioned not see the entry made? The officer concerned has decided that he has committed an offence, but not an offence of sufficient gravity for a prosecution to follow. Why should the officer, in those circumstances, when delivering an official caution in respect of which subsequent action may be taken, not make an entry in the presence of the person concerned? Although the matter is in itself a very trivial one, I understand that the police consider that it should be considered. They ask quite definitely that this order shall be rescinded, so that the officer shall not be put in the invidious position in which he finds himself to-day.
A further matter I wish to raise relates to the Special Constabulary, about which also there is a good deal of unrest 'and dissatisfaction. When a public appeal was made recently for special constables there was a considerable and patriotic
response on the part of the public. I understand that many of the "specials" were quite prepared to perform emergency duties under a sense of public duty, and were willing to give their services when required in cases of serious public disturbance, but they do resent very much indeed being called upon to perform ordinary routine police duties., and the members of the regular force, I am told, also object very much to these amateurs being brought in to take their places. The new departure, the employment of civilians, laymen, non-professionals, as special constables to take ordinary police duties, is really a species of dilution of labour. It is also a kind of blacklegging. If there is a shortage of police, as i understand there is, the Home Secretary or the various watch committees have a tremendous list of healthy young men who are candidates for the Police Force and are qualified in every way to be employed. The Commissioner and the watch committees have the pick of the best of these men, who ought to be employed rather than these amateurs. If the force requires strengthening, obviously the proper course is the make addition to the force.
One of the reasons for dissatisfaction inside the force on this head is that the present scheme practically bars the way to promotion for a number of men. If the force is augmented to proper strength by the recruitment of new men, that opens up avenues of promotion to capable men in the service. If, on the other hand, the numbers of the regular force are kept down and unpaid amateurs are employed, the chances of promotion are necessarily reduced correspondingly. We suggest to the Home Secretary that it is bad policy, and false economy in the long run, to try to save money by maintaining the police force at its pre-War strength. A great many things have happened since 1914. We have a considerable increase in population. There has been a multiplication of new duties imposed on the force by legislation in the intervening 18 years. A great strain has been imposed on the force by the coming of the motor car, and there are numerous things of which cognisance has now to be taken under the Road Traffic Act.
There are complaints from many districts of the country that particular areas are under-policed at the present time. I think the Home Secretary must have
received a good many representations on that matter, and I know definitely that quite a number of watch committees and standing joint committees have had their attention drawn to the matter. We suggest that police work is difficult work, responsible work, and it is often dangerous work, and it is not the sort of job to be given to amateurs. A number of motor police patrols, official, semi-official, and unofficial, have been tried in different places, and have always proved unsatisfactory and have been given up. There is a considerable danger to the public from the uninstructed zeal, and often the officiousness, as well as the ignorance, of lay policemen. They may be all right under orders in squad formation at times of grave public emergency or disturbance. No one has a word to say against their employment under such conditions, but to use them, in normal times and circumstances, to take over the duties of the ordinary policeman, seems to be entirely wrong, and it really involves no inconsiderable danger to the public and to the reputation of the force as a whole. There have been several of what I might almost call scandals due to the lack of discretion exhibited by some of these special constables, and the public in the districts concerned, and elsewhere, ask for protection against this sort of thing. We ask the Home Secretary that the amateurs shall not be used to supplant the ordinary policeman. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that aspect of the question as well as the fact that Members of the regular Force resent the introduction of these men.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I suggest that the Home Secretary might address the House early in our proceedings, so that there may be an opportunity of replying to what he says?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): I thought it would be more convenient to the Committee if all the points that hon. Members wish to raise were brought before the Committee before I made my speech.

Mr. JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to wind up the Debate?

Sir H. SAMUEL: If anyone wants to answer any of my observations I am sure that the Committee will be delighted to hear him.

Mr. ATTLEE: On a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman gave us a very interesting description of the service over which he presides, but he was forced to break off because he was getting out of order.

Mr. LEES-JONES: The remarks I have to make are prompted more from a desire for information than by criticism. I do not altogether agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken, that there is ill-feeling in the Police Force over the economy cut. As I understand it, the members of the Police Force are as desirous as any other body in the Kingdom to bear their share of the burden caused by the trouble in which we found ourselves last year. Where members of the Police Force do find ground for complaint is that the salary for new entrants to the force is widely different from that which was in operation before October of last year. Members of the Police Force of long standing are now wondering whether the 5 per cent. which was knocked off last year, and the further 5 per cent. which will be knocked off this year, will be given back to them when the school teachers and others get the benefit of the restoration of their cuts. Members of the Police Force have also some doubt as to what is going to happen to their pensions. I shall be very grateful if the Home Secretary will give some assurance on these points.
Most of the economies in the Home Office Vote on this occasion comprise reductions in the pay of police officers. There has been a reduction of 5 per cent. as compared with last year's Estimates, but 86 per cent. of that five per cent. comprises reductions in the salaries of police officers. We all agree that we were sent back to the House of Commons to cut down expenditure and economise as much as possible, but not necessarily to economise at the expense of our servants. We have had very little evidence, so far, of administrative economies, and I shall be very grateful if the Home Secretary will point out what economies in administration have been made since October of last year. The
Police Force have submitted to the Home Office various methods by which in their opinion economies could be effected, but, go far as we know, nothing has been done in that direction. I put down a question in February last asking for information on the point, and I was told that all these proposals had been considered by a sub-committee of the Police Council, and that steps had been taken, or were being taken, in the light of their findings. We would like to know what steps have been taken.
I am at one with the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) in regard to the use of special constables, but, if the Home Office desire to continue special constables, there is less important work for them to do than directing the traffic at crossings, and dealing with other important matters. If the time of the police force is to be saved, and they are to be put on to their original jobs, it would be better to use special constables for such work as watching smoky chimneys, finding out who has a dog without a licence, and so on, rather than putting a uniformed constable on to this work when there is more important work that he can do. We are told that the women police are a useful body, and perhaps the Home Secretary will be good enough to tell us where their utility comes in, and whether it is worth while keeping them on, or whether they should be disbanded. I should have liked to ask a question on another matter, but it is to some extent sub judice at the moment. That is the question of merging the smaller police forces in the larger ones. This proposal was made by the Desborough Committee in 1919. It is now 1932, and only a very short time ago a committee was formed to look into this question. Of course, we do not blame the Home Secretary and the present Government for that delay; previous Governments are quite as responsible; but many of us think that in these times, when we are trying to cut down expenditure, if such a committee had to be appointed it ought to have been appointed six months ago, and not to-day. Everyone realises that the police force are a responsible body of men. We depend upon them for many things, and we consider that they ought to have justice. We ourselves, in our own businesses, as far as possible, cut down ad-
ministrative costs before we start touching the wages of our workpeople, and we think that the Government ought to have done the same in regard to the police.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I should like, on behalf of the Committee, to congratulate the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Lees-Jones) on his maiden speech. I am sure it is the universal feeling in the Committee that we shall look forward on future occasions to remarks from him to such as he has given us to-day, speaking with authority, clarity and brevity. The first point that I want to raise is in connection with the observations of the hon. Member for the West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) in relation to the Police Federation. All the time that the hon. Member was speaking, I felt, and probably other Members of the Committee felt, that there was an idea that the police should have some sort of political bias or political feeling, either for the Government or against the Government, according to the particular actions of the Government and according to whether the Police Federation approved of the Government's actions or not. I think, however, that there is a general desire in all quarters of the House that the police should be, like the armed forces of the Crown, above all political pressure, and should not take part in any form of political organisation; and I feel that any discussion, or action, or request to His Majesty's Government, which would allow of greater political latitude to the Police Force, is something which the police themselves as a body would not welcome, and which is not desirable in the general interests of the country.
The hon. Member for West Bermondsey referred to the orders of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and said that the Commissioner had exceeded his duty in interfering with meetings outside the police area. I would ask to be allowed to-day, as a Member of the House who had the privilege of serving under the Commissioner, to say that, whether he did right or wrong according to the law, I am quite sure that he did right according to the merits of the particular case. Having had the honour of serving under the Commissioner for a good many years, I felt, in a disturbed time, when none of us quite knew who
were our friends and who were our enemies, and when the Police Force was under severe criticism, very happy when I learned of the appointment of Lord Trenchard as Commissioner, because I felt that, whether one agreed generally with the Government of the day or not, at any rate they had done one wise act, and I am sure that, as long as Lord Trenchard has the command of the police, there will be nothing wrong with the force.
May I ask the Home Secretary what is the position with regard to the ever-increasing menace of motor banditry? Every day we are disturbed by reports of an increase of crime. That is probably connected with the industrial depression and the unemployment that exist to-day. The Home Secretary has statistics which bear out the fact that, in every cycle of economic depression and unemployment for the last 100 years, there has been a corresponding increase in crime. Now we have the greatest depression that we have had in recent history, and we can only look forward with misgiving to a greater cycle of crime, with modern methods and modem instruments of crime such as the fast motor car and possibly even the aeroplane in the future. One would like to know, without asking any indiscreet questions as to the secret methods which no doubt the police are using, whether the Home Secretary does look forward, unfortunately, to an increase in this crime, and whether he feels that the methods and facilities which he has at his disposal are likely to be sufficient to cope with it.
With regard to the question of motor accidents on the roads, may I personally pay a tribute to the mobile police? I feel that their introduction has not only checked certain crimes or transgressions of rules of the roads, but has afforded a link of liaison between motorists and the police which has gone some way towards bringing about a better understanding between those two bodies. In the past, the motorist has very often felt that he was a pariah in the sight of every policeman, and the police were his natural enemies; but the fact that the police themselves are driving on overcrowded roads, and are having to navigate through the same traffic through which the ordinary motorist has to navigate, gives
him a, feeling of confidence that his difficulties are understood and appreciated by the police, and that he will in the future get an even fairer deal from the police in any case of trouble than he has had in the past. I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether the police are encouraging the further introduction of control lights for pedestrian traffic. I know that this is a matter for local authorities, but doubtless the Metropolitan Police have to make reports to those local authorities, such, for instance, as that of Croydon, who have put up these control lights, and I should be glad to know whether those responsible for the administration of traffic look with favour upon an enlargement of that system.
With regard to the one-way traffic system, for which the Metropolitan police are responsible, I should like to ask for how long the taxpayers are to be called upon to pay for the retention of a constable permanently directing the traffic at certain points, such as Hammersmith Broadway? Is there no means of avoiding the necessity for a uniformed police officer to be engaged in waving traffic this way and that way all the time as it comes into that street? An officer has been stationed there for that purpose for very nearly two years to my knowledge, and I hesitate to think of the amount of money that it has cost the taxpayer, as well as the diversion to this purpose of the services of an officer who might well be doing duty in a more useful sphere. There may be other places in London where this occurs. Is there any means of eliminating this man-power for ensuring that motorists keep to the one-way regulations?
The hon. Member for Blackley said that the police were often employed in going round looking at dog licences and spotting smoky chimneys when they might be employed on more useful work. One feels very often, however, that this necessity for looking at dog licences and smoky chimneys is really a result of the legislation which we ourselves are responsible for passing. We keep on passing laws week after week, month after month, and year after year, and the police are responsible for seeing that those laws are kept; and when they do that, and we are reluctant to grant any more money for an enlarged Police Force, we ask why the police are not doing their proper jobs.
But we ourselves are to blame, and I trust that we shall not continue passing this legislation without enlarging the Police Force and giving them a fair chance to carry out the regulations which we pass.
Finally, I would say that motorists as a whole owe a deep debt of gratitude and are under a considerable obligation to the average policeman, in the Metropolitan area in particular. He has a hard and arduous task, and I know personally, having had an unfortunate motor accident quite recently, the tact and courtesy and fairness and technical efficiency with which the police dealt with that particular accident, which is typical, I am afraid, of many others that occur. Accidents are all too frequent. By means of the Road Traffic Act and by various other methods we are endeavouring to reduce them, but I would like to say, as one Member of the House who has been concerned in an unfortunate accident, that the police, if they act in other such cases as they did in mine, will continue to merit the good will of the House of Commons.

4.30 p.m.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Not only this House but the whole country owes a very deep debt of gratitude to the police. They have carried out their duties during a very difficult time with that tact and efficiency which we are accustomed to get from them. In these days of industrial depression the police are frequently called upon to use great tact. We have an instance in what happened yesterday. When we think of what happens in other countries, we may be congratulated upon our Police Force, and it is largely owing to them that these incidents do not occur in greater numbers. I think we are all agreed that in the near future we shall probably be obliged to have an increase in our Police Force in London and elsewhere. It appears to me that we could extend them on the lines of having a supplementary road control organisation. In some counties road scouts belonging to various clubs and associations have been used for point duty work. Generally speaking, these men carry out their duties as efficiently as the police could do. I believe that in some counties they receive remuneration for providing these services. It appears to me that that practice might very well be extended but, if that is going to be done, it is obvious that these road point
duty men must have official authority behind them. It is no good an R.A.C. or an A.A. scout holding up his hand unless the signal is going to be obeyed. Throughout the country generally we shall require a large number of road point duty men, and that service might very well be rendered by such men as these. That would enable us, not only in London but also in our country districts, not to increase the number of police more than is necessary for vital police work.
I sum afraid I thoroughly disagree with the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), who spoke about dissatisfaction in the Police Force. I do not believe there is anything like the dissatisfaction that he gave us to understand, and I am certain that the satisfactory condition of the Police Force is very largely due to the fact that they are not dominated by any particular political party. I believe the holding of outdoor meetings is not wished for.

Dr. SALTER: I never suggested anything of the sort and, as far as I understand, no one in the Police Force has ever suggested anything of the kind.

Major THOMAS: I accept what the hon. Member says, in which case I feel sure he will agree that this Committee should not go away with any idea that the Police Force wishes to hold outdoor meetings of any kind. I feel that the country is very well served by its Police Force, and that is principally due to the fact that it is not dominated by any particular political party. I am not sure whether another subject that I wish to allude to is in order on this Vote, but is it not time that all London squares had one-way traffic? It would obviate a great number of accidents. It would not inconvenience many people and it would obviate a great deal of trouble.

The CHAIRMAN: That is outside this Vote. The police may have to administer one-way traffic when the Orders are made.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Do I understand that, in point of fact, the decision whether a given area should be subject to one-way traffic or not is not a matter for the Commissioner of Police?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure about it. Perhaps the Home Secretary
himself will tell us. I was under the impression that it was under the Ministry of Transport.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The Ministry of Transport and the Commissioner of Police confer together. I am not precisely sure which function devolves on which, but the Commissioner of Police has to enforce the Order when it is made.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the matter would come more appropriately on the Transport Vote. The House under the guidance of the Ministry of Transport has passed certain legislative measures to deal with traffic and one-way traffic Orders should, I think, come under that Ministry's Vote, although administration of those Orders after they are made may come under the police.

Major THOMAS: I have said all that is necessary on the subject and, if it has anything to do with the right hon. Gentleman's Department, no doubt he will make a note of it. So far as the general duties of the police with regard to road traffic in London are concerned, we are all very glad to see that automatic signals are very largely taking the place of the police and doing the -work very efficiently indeed. It is obvious, from the fact that these signals are working well, that the police on point duty are nothing else but human signal boxes, and it seems to me that the time has come when we might not only see an expansion of the system of automatic signalling, but also that the duty of operating these signals might very well be transferred to men not of the physical standard and capacity and capability of our present policemen.

Mr. LYONS: I should like to associate myself with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said as to the public appreciation of the way in which the work of the Police Force is done. It has, in general, earned the regard of all those who realise how much we are dependent on them for the maintenance of public order. I rise to ask the Home Secretary if he will put an end to the differentiation of practice that now exists in reference to police reports. There is a lack of uniformity which often results in what might be grave injustice, and certainly in dissatisfaction, to those concerned in litigation who can least afford
it. I want to say a word on behalf of the poorer litigant who claims in respect of a motor accident. A large proportion of the litigation to-day in county courts and in some branches of the High Court arises out of running down and collision cases, and in almost every instance the defence of those actions is undertaken by insurance companies, because this House in its judgment recently passed an Act making it essential for every driver and owner of a motor vehicle to be insured in respect of third party claims. The injustice to which I refer cannot but operate harshly in the case of a man who is injured and seeks to bring an action against a motorist who is supported by the resources of some substantial insurance company. It often arises that the only evidence available to the plaintiff is that of a police officer who was at the scene of the accident or came immediately afterwards. At any rate, if any such evidence is in existence, it should be available. The practice is that the superintendent of police or the chief constable is approached for a police report to say what evidence there was, who the witnesses were and what the circumstances were in connection with the accident.
Then begins the variation which causes the injustice to which I refer. In one part of the country a précis of the police officer's statement is sent on payment of a small fee. In an-other part of the country—I am sorry to have to say that this practice is getting more and more common—the head of the Police Force first of all fixes a fee for the statement of the police officer and then fixes a fee for each statement of any person who can throw any light at all on the occurrence. If an interview is wanted by those concerned on behalf of the unfortunate plaintiff, a fee has to be paid to see the police officer, and a fee is again sometimes asked for each statement of witnesses whose names the police have taken. If the officer is required to go and see the plaintiff, his expenses must be paid and, as the conversation can only take place in the presence of a superintendent of police, a fee again must be paid to enable the superintendent to go. A poor litigant will suffer considerable hardship (unless he is covered by the poor persons rules) as, in order to get the necessary evidence he
will be put to expenditure which he can ill afford. I am certain that there is no police officer in the country who would desire to deny to any litigant any evidence that is available. It is not the police officer who gets the fee, and he does not desire to put difficulties in the way of a man bringing his claim to court. It is the authority that puts the difficulty in the way of the litigant and demands payment of these fees. Any police constable, I am sure, would be only too glad to do what every decent member of society would do and place any information that he has at the disposal of those seeking justice.
Only to-day I have been supplied with a letter from a responsible officer of the Surrey Constabulary, who says he proposes to regard any statements that he has as confidential and not in any circumstances to give any extracts from them at all. This is a denial to a litigant—perhaps one already suffering from some permanent injury—of his right to approach justice with the full facts to which he is entitled. No such ordinary statement of fact can be considered privileged or confidential, and I think no police official has the right so to proclaim it. Access to our courts is a universal right, and all such suggested restrictions are to be deprecated in the interests of public justice. And there are many such variations in this police procedure, all calculated to be embarrassing to those seeking the truth in preparing their eases. As another example, one finds that in Kent, between Dover and Folkestone, a matter of 15 miles, there are two entirely different practices, and the result is that with this multiplicity of practices in the police authorities there is great difficulty and embarrassment caused to litigants in various places. I urge upon the Home Secretary to issue instructions to the various police authorities all over the country that there shall be one and the same practice adopted, and that no litigant because of his lack of means shall be denied the right to have at his disposal, in order to assist justice, every piece of available evidence, and that the police authorities concerned should be directed, and given no option in the matter, that on the payment of the smallest fee, if a fee at all be necessary, a complete statement of what was in the
knowledge of any police officer who witnessed the accident or who was called to the scene of the accident, should be made available on behalf of the person who had been injured and who sought to bring an action.
It may be said—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not suggest it—by members of the Committee, "Why is not the police officer subpoenaed?" It would be wrong to subpoena a police officer whose statement you had not seen. The litigant who brings an officer to the court puts him forward as a witness of truth and dependability and he is bound by what he says. It would be dangerous on behalf of a litigant to bring a witness to the court whose statement he or his advisers had not seen. I ask that every effort be made and every direction possible be given to see that a full statement is made available at the earliest possible time after the collision, on behalf of the injured man in whose interest an action is brought. May I remind my right hon. Friend of the fact that, unfortunately, road accidents are not getting less; they are increasing. The more frequent they become, the more harsh will be the injustice which I have indicated in my observations this afternoon. I hope that my right hon. Friend will, at a very early date, stop this arbitrary procedure and insist upon a uniform and fair rule being adopted by every police authority. May I ask that we be allowed another occasion on some future date of discussing in the House the many questions which will arise out of those matters which, for various reasons, we are now unable to discuss?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) has raised, will appear to every Member of the Committee, and even to the Home Secretary, to be a subject of very great importance, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will give it full and detailed attention. I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman in regard to the point which he has raised, but to bring back the Committee to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) when he opened the discussion this afternoon. Hon. Members have rightly paid tribute to the general efficiency of the Police Force of this country as well as to their great devotion
to public duty. No one on this side of the Committee would desire to detract in any way from the fullness of the tribute which they merit. But if a policeman is to discharge his duties adequately, the conditions under which he works must be conditions with which he is fully satisfied. You cannot have an efficient service unless you have as a pre-condition a contented police service. Surely, whatever we may consider to be adequate for them, they clearly have a right to a voice in determining the conditions under which they work.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bermondsey reminded us that after the trouble which supervened soon after the War, the Home Office and the Government deliberately and with set purpose instituted an organisation to act as the medium through which the police would be able from time to time to ventilate any grievances from which they might consider themselves to be suffering. That organisation—the Police Federation—has functioned more or less effectively. I cannot say that I am enormously enamoured of its work, but still it has functioned for well over a decade. Its procedings have been looked upon with favour by the head of each Government Department. It has followed certain procedure which, I understand, until recently has never been questioned. Towards the end of last autumn the police, like other arms of the Civil Service, had to undergo a certain measure of economy, and naturally a policeman, like everybody else, dislikes a cut in his salary. I do not suppose that Cabinet Ministers like it either. If the police dislike a cut in their salaries, surely they have a right to express their disappointment. The Police Force, not only in London but in other parts of the country, naturally wished to express their feelings concerning the cut which was imposed upon them. In expressing their feelings by way of public discussion they were not implying in any way a demand that they should be put above other people. They were not asking for any special and exceptional terms, but were prepared to regard themselves in the same light as other people, subject to the same disabilities as other people—no more and no less.
After the cuts had been imposed upon them, they deemed it to be wise to hold
a certain number, not of public meetings in the ordinary sense, but of what might be called open meetings at which the Press were not allowed to be present but to which public representatives drawn from all political parties, I believe, were invited to participate in a discussion on a common platform. Now, I understand, the Home Secretary has frowned upon that procedure. It is a very daring thing to risk the frown of the Home Secretary, but a good number of his colleagues in the Cabinet have sustained their experience and so far have survived wonderfully well. If the Home Secretary is to be free to express his disagreement with his colleagues when there is no cut in his salary involved but a question of policy, or public policy if you like, surely the policeman ought to be equally free to express his view at an open meeting. The right hon. Gentleman from time to time makes it clear to the world from his place at that Box that he disagrees with his colleagues of the Cabinet, and I understand that he is going to do so again this week. Why may not a policeman do the same sort of thing? What right has the Home Secretary to be treated differently from the ordinary policeman in demonstrating his disagreement, especially when in the case of the policeman it concerns his daily or weekly wage?
Some hon. Members have expressed a feeling of abhorrence lest the Police Force of this country should partake of some sort of political flavour. Personally, I am not anxious to rope the Police Federation into the Labour movement. But that is not the question at all. If you want to avoid politics being introduced into the police organisation, please give them a guarantee that they are free to discuss their grievances from time to time without let or hindrance even from the Home Secretary, benevolent as is the present Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, in this matter has departed somewhat from the strict faith of Liberalism. It is not his first departure I know, but do not let us have too many lapses, otherwise he will begin to lose his political identity which, so far, he has managed to retain. In this matter, anyhow, the right of a man to discuss the conditions under which he shall work is an elementary right in the sight of every Liberal, and should be a right with which a Liberal Home Secretary should in no wise interfere.
I, therefore, invite the Home Secretary in all good faith and good feeling to remove the embargo which he has placed upon open meetings at which policemen may invite the representatives of all parties to discuss with them their special professional grievances. Hon. Members on the opposite side of the Committee have asked us to take good care not to introduce a political flavour into the Police Force. If I accord that point to them, will they accord to me that there must not be a military flavour introduced into the Police Force?
5.0 p.m.
What is the real explanation of the diligent search for Military, Naval and Air Force officers to man the higher posts of the police service? Why is it that we cannot contemplate the promotion of somebody in the Police Force who has equipped himself by experience and long association with that force adequately to discharge the function of Police Commissioner in London? It used to be said that Napoleon encouraged his soldiers with the thought that each man carried a field marshal's baton in his knapsack. I understand that an ordinary policeman may not, according to the present position, anticipate at any time becoming the Chief Police Commissioner. Why not? Time after time we go outside the service to invite Admiral this or General that or Vice-Marshal this or Marshal that. Why should this important service be deemed to be the preserve of highly placed military officers? I will ask another question. Who is Colonel Drummond? Where did Colonel Drummond come from? What was his special qualification to join the Police Force in London? Had he qualified in some special way for this force? Has he subscribed to the ordinary rules to which policemen subscribe? What merit attaches to him particularly? Did he drop from the clouds, or from where did he come? It is time that we put an end to the stupid habit of bringing in people from outside to occupy those high posts. Inevitably it creates a feeling of suspicion that these posts are being preserved for certain highly placed people. I dare say that is not true, but the repetition of it over and over again does lend colour to the suggestion, to say the least of it. I do not understand what is wrong with the principle that there should be pro-
motion for people who all their lives have been associated with the Police Force and have qualified by meritorious service for promotion within the Police Force. Why are not they guaranteed the chance, the prospect—to put it no higher—of eventually ascending to the top of the service?
May I ask another question, because it touches upon a matter of importance? I understand that there has been a development recently in the Metropolitan Police Service of a campaign emphasising the value of zeal. I am all for zeal. Zeal is an excellent quality, whether in the Police Force, the Cabinet or any other service, but I am rather afraid that zeal is in danger of being tested in the wrong way. How do you test the zeal of a policeman? Do you test it by the number of arrests he makes or the number of prosecutions he secures, or how is it tested? I should be glad if the Home Secretary would let us know how many warnings in regard to zeal have been sent out to the Metropolitan Police Service in the last two or three months. I think I shall not be very far from the truth when I say that zeal is in danger of being interpreted as success in bringing home convictions against people, or at any rate, the prosecution of people. That is an extraordinarily vicious principle to introduce, if it is being introduced.
If a man feels that his zeal is being tested by the number of people he hales before the courts, or the number of prosecutions he is able to undertake, and if he feels that his efficiency pay depends upon that, and, incidentally, the amount of his pension depends upon it, you are liable to divert that policeman's activity into a very undesirable channel. I should like to ask the Home Secretary if he will see to it that—while we are all anxious to safeguard the retention of as much zeal as possible on the part of individual members of the Metropolitan Police Force—zeal is not necessarily to be interpreted or defined as success in securing convictions or in bringing about prosecutions against a greater or lesser number of people. The question of payment by results, for that is what it comes to, is an old question. It is not one that applies merely to the Police Force. It was a vicious old principle that used to be applied in the teaching service. It
is a horrible principle, a vicious thing, and it ought never to be allowed to enter into a Service of this sort.
There is no special merit in creating an infinite number of prosecutions or exciting the interests of the individual policeman in getting a certain number of prosecutions to his credit. The question is whether the law is being fairly administered, whether the policeman is a dutiful servant of the community, and whether he is able to give his superiors adequate proof of his diligence in the discharge of his tasks. None of these artificial tests ought to be allowed to be introduced in so difficult a service as the police service. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will be able to give us some assurance on these three simple points: First, whether appointments are to have any political flavour and whether they are to be relieved of military flavour; secondly, whether the Police Federation is to be free to be the vehicle for the focussing of opinion among the police forces of the country, without undue interference from the Government; and, thirdly, whether we can have an assurance from the Home Secretary regarding the interpretation of the word "zeal" as applied to the ordinary policeman.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: We are asked to vote a sum of £944,000, almost £1,000,000, for the prisons. This is a suitable opportunity for those who are dissatisfied with the working and the results of the prisons—

The CHAIRMAN: I thought the hon. Member understood that this was the Police Vote and not the Prisons Vote.

Captain FULLER: I hope that after what has been said on both sides of the Committee in regard to the Police Federation, the Home Secretary will take this opportunity of clearing up the difficulty. As far as I have been able to discover, the Police Act, 1919, gave no statutory right to the Police Federation to hold what has been called open meetings, but the situation has been made rather obscure by political or semi-political actions; by the fact that previous Home Secretaries and, I think, the present Home Secretary, have, what I may call, condoned open meetings of the Police Federation. It is a fact that since the constitution of the federation in the Police
Act, 1919, open meetings have been allowed by the Home Office. As recently as February of this year, the Home Secretary stated in a letter to the federation that, although open meetings were not inherent in the constitution of the federation itself, they had in the past served a useful purpose, and he had no doubt that they would do so again.
I understand that the Home Secretary's reason for not wishing that the Police Federation should hold open meetings at this particular juncture is that its purpose may be to discuss economy measures. I hope, however, that he will take this opportunity of clearing up a matter which has given rise to a certain amount of doubt, as to whether the Police Federation can even hold its own normal meetings. I believe that previously it has been allowed to hold six meetings a year, four of which could be held in the Provinces, but I understand that that has been vetoed and that the whole of the six meetings must be held in London. If that is the case, then clearly it is not giving the Police Federation "a fair do," and is not giving the policemen in the country an opportunity of putting their case to the Government through the very medium which the Government set up in years gone by for that purpose.
I would also ask the Home Secretary to give us an assurance that he will consider the recommendations which the Police Federation have made in regard to further economies in the Police Service. As the Committee know, further drastic reductions are to be made this year and, as is always the case with economies, a Government Department usually takes a look round at pay. I suggest that in the case of the police there is plenty of scope for economy in administration. I hope the Home Secretary will give the fullest-consideration to the proposals which have been put forward by the federation which, as far as I can see, would in no way jeopardise the efficiency of the Service but would tend to create greater contentment in the personnel of the force. There is a certain amount of apprehension among the police as to the new pay rates which new entrants to the force are to receive. I do not intend to discuss that matter, but those rates are obviously in accord with the policy which the Government intend to pursue in future. Apprehension has been caused among the
present members of the force owing to lack of an assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to reduce in future the pay of the present members of the force on the permanent scale to that which they propose to impose on the new entrants. There is also apprehension in regard to pensions. I hope that the Home Secretary will seize this opportunity Of dispelling this apprehensive feeling, because I think it is unjustified. I do not think that the Government have any such intention, but it should be just as well if they said so to-day in no uncertain manner.
There is one further point which I should like to raise in connection with pensions. A case was mentioned by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter). I had not heard of it before, and I did not think that that attitude of mind existed in the pension authorities in this country. He referred to the case of a policeman who had been drowned through his boat upsetting, and to another policeman who lost his life when he was in charge of a motor-boat patrol. He referred to the very great difference in the amount of pension which had been granted to the two widows. I should like to ask the Home Secretary on what principle the Home Office proceed when they decide such cases, in view of the very large discrepancy in the amount of pension given in almost two similar cases. I think I know the answer that will be given, but I thought that that state of mind was only in evidence in a country like India, where we know that decisions on matters of pension are rather peculiar. In my own experience I remember that we had a Gurkha mule driver who was kicked by a mule and had to retire from the Service. It was decided that he was not entitled to a pension on the ground that a similar accident might have occurred to a civilian. After a great deal of correspondence, we discovered what we ought to have known before, that there were no such things as mules in Nepal. However, the man eventually got his pension.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: What was it that did kick him?

Captain FULLER: A mule. I hope that that state of mind does not prevail in the pension departments of this country, and I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us what are the real
facts and what guides the Home Office in coming to a decision. I suppose he will tell us, as many Ministers of the Crown tell us, that he has no power to alter the existing regulations. If that is the case, I hope that he will take his courage in both hands, as he does so often on other occasions, and come to the House and ask for power to put right what is an obvious injustice.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: On a previous occasion I raised the question of police evidence in civil causes, and I propose to raise it again this afternoon, and if I repeat myself I hope to a somewhat different audience to that which I then addressed. My point then was that I had discovered, much to my surprise, that the Home Office gave instructions to policemen whom it was desired to see in order to get what is called in England a proof of their evidence, but what we in Scotland call a precognition, of what they were going to say in the witness box in a civil action for damages, to demand a fee. The amount to be demanded was 5s. for a constable and 7s. 6d. for a sergeant, and I presume that as you go up the scale to a superintendent and chief constable it will be a larger sum. I protested then and I protest now against this as being a highly improper proceeding. It is the duty of every citizen to give evidence of facts which come to his notice, and it is his duty to do so without fee or reward. If he asks for money then he at once becomes a suspect witness. If he is a working man who has lost any time by having to go to the court then he is entitled to be indemnified for the time he has lost and to have his expenses paid, but to suggest that a salaried officer like a policeman is to ask for money before giving evidence of facts within his knowledge in connection with a civil action is a most improper proceeding.
This money, for which the constable is to ask, does not go to the individual constable and, indeed, the individual constable is far too good a citizen to make this demand, he knows his duties far too well to do so. Indeed, if a constable were to ask for any payment for his private profit disciplinary action would be taken; no doubt he would be dismissed from the force for asking for money for which he has no right to ask.
The offence on the part of the police in asking for this payment becomes all the more gross because the Home Office has instructed chief constables to demand money from people who are seeking the truth regarding some particular claim they may have and which is being heard in the courts. I have seen it stated as a justification that people who take action in the courts for damages do so for private profit. That is an entirely unsound argument, because a person who is injured by a motor car or in a motoring accident, of which the police may be the sole witnesses, is not seeking private profit but is seeking to have made good the damage he has suffered in the accident. If a person loses a leg he may recover anything from £500 to £2,000. There is not a Member of this House who would lose one of his limbs for any amount of money, and yet money is the only reparation that can be made in the case of such accidents. A man who is awarded damages in a civil claim in the case of an accident is not made any richer by the award, he is only making the best that can be made to diminish the resulting damage of his accident.
As I say, it is the duty of every private citizen to bear witness to the truth without fee or reward, except when he is subpoenaed, when some small allowance may be made to cover out-of-pocket expenses. If you propose to tender a witness as a reputable witness you take care, you can hardly do otherwise, to interview the witness and find out what he is going to say. If you are suspicious that such a witness may go back upon his statement you ask him to sign a written statement of what he has said, and then if he goes back upon that statement in his evidence before the court you can then ask leave of the court to treat him as a hostile witness and cross-examine him as such. The suggestion of the Home Office is that the police, these public servants who are paid out of taxes, have a lower conception of their duty in dealing with these claims than the ordinary citizen. This idea is perfectly monstrous; it is fundamentally wrong. Who benefits? It is only the insurance companies who defend these actions.
It may be that the people who raise these cases are comparatively poor. It
may be the case of a widow woman whose husband has been killed in a motor accident, and the first thing a constable is told to do is to demand a payment before he will say what he saw. It has been suggested that it means taking him off his beat. The police have as much leisure as the rest of the community and there can be no objection to people who require their evidence on questions of fact in regard to these civil actions interviewing a policeman in his leisure as they would in the case of another citizen. I have sufficient knowledge from a long experience in my own profession and of the policemen to know that no policeman will put any obstacle in the way of his giving that evidence. It is the bureaucratic mind of the Home Office or some other similar mind which has suggested this extraordinary instruction. It is all very well to make exceptions in the case of poor people, but that suggests a poverty inspection, an examination as to means. The whole thing is entirely wrong, and I hope the Home Secretary will announce that he is renouncing this exaction which has crept into the administration of justice.
The danger of this kind of thing spreading we can see clearly in what is miscalled in to-day's papers the cheapening of justice. It is proposed now to abolish the right of the citizen to demand a trial by jury. We must watch these on goings. Take the case of a private employer. Suppose a man who has been injured in an accident goes to a private employer and says, "I understand your foreman and two of your journeymen saw a certain accident. I want you to give me an opportunity to interview them." The employer might say, "Oh, if you want to do that the charge payable to me for the journeymen is 5s. each, and for the foreman 7s. 6d." There is such a thing as a privileged statement, but there can be no privileged statement of a policeman who is the witness of an accident. He is only an ordinary citizen who has seen what has happened. There is no question of privilege, and his evidence should be made available without fee or charge. There is no suggestion that it will lead to any abuse. It only means that the unfortunate injured person will be able to find out how the accident happened, and my long experience is that the police state the facts as they see them. It is
a shocking thing to put any obstacles whatever in the way of the administration of justice, even in civil causes.
The police at the moment are having a very hard time because so many foolish duties are being put upon them. It is entirely wrong for them to have control of the direction of traffic. That is not a policeman's duty. You do not want these splendid specimens of manhood to do that work. You can get a much more economical class of citizen to perform this duty through the different motor societies, thereby releasing the police for their real duty of preventing crime. Another matter wherein there might be a saving is here. I have never been able to see why there is any moral difference, or that there should be any legal difference, between drinking good champaign at a reasonable price at one hour and drinking bad champagn at an unreasonable price an hour later. It is a silly regulation, and to have our first-class policemen wasting their time in looking after these melancholy night clubs is bringing the whole country into ridicule. Why not charge these places £l,000 licence duty, and let us have our share of it; but do not waste the time of the police in this way. Give Mrs. Meyrick the O.B.E. and finish with it, and have all these foolish regulations done away with. If fools and their money are to be parted let us get some of it.
I see that a former Home Secretary in one of the Sunday papers wrote an article under the title "I am not a killjoy" and said that some people wanted too much liberty when they thought that there should be no laws against burglary, night clubs and drunkenness. You will notice the collocation. He, not the present Home Secretary, is largely responsible for those foolish activities of the police. Naturally a man who appears to think burglary, night clubs and drunkenness are on a par would be responsible. That is why so much time of our police is wasted, and I hope that the present Home Secretary who, except in his fiscal judgment, is a very intelligent Member of the Government will exercise his sanity and commonsense and get rid of all these D.O.R.A. Regulations which are wasting the money of the taxpayer.
5.30 p.m.
There is another matter upon which I want to say a word, and that is the large amount of crime which is occurring at the moment. The police, I am told, are very much hampered by certain regulations which were brought into force on account of a memorable Hyde Park case, in regard to which I have always had the suspicion that they were right, although they were not able to prove it. Under the old regulations you could not ask a man or woman whom you were going to accuse to make a statement without a previous warning that they need not make any statement at all, but that regulation was extended to people who may be witnesses to the offence and from whom you may wish to get some inkling or some evidence which will enable the police to put their hands on the proper criminals. When you have got this witness, whom you may never charge at all and do not intend to charge, you have to say, "Now please understand that although I am a policeman and seeking justice you need not say a word unless you like." What is the good of getting hold of a witness whom you want to speak and then telling him that he need not do so? The police have not a chance in these circumstances. It is the result of hysterical and emotional action in connection with the Hyde Park incident, and it has greatly hampered the police in the execution of their duty. They do not know where they are. In the main the police give every suspected individual a fair run. The police as a whole are very anxious not to arrest decent citizens, and it must be very galling to them to have this muzzle put on them, as the result of that case. I believe the Home Secretary will be meeting the views of practically all well-behaved and decent citizens if he restores to the police the old facilities that they had to make it more certain that, when a crime has been committed, it will be possible for the police to get at the facts, and make a proper examination of witnesses who are likely to be able to throw light on the subject. Apart from what I have said, I think the report of the Home Secretary is in the main satisfactory.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I particularly want to ask one question on the matter that has just been raised, namely, the
examination of witnesses by the police. Has the position been altered, or has it not, since the Savidge case? As has been so clearly pointed out, the ends of justice are defeated if the police have to warn witnesses who may be able to give valuable evidence in the detection of crime, "If you do not want to answer any question you need not." That renders the whole course of justice absurd. It is difficult for the police, in those conditions, to work up any case at all. There is not the slightest doubt that many crimes are undetected, for this very reason that restrictions have been placed upon the police in the examination of witnesses. Everybody agrees that if a man is going to be accused of a crime he should be warned. That is in an entirely different category from the examination of witnesses who may be able to give valuable evidence to bring home the crime to the criminal. It is quite impossible for the police to carry out their arduous duties at the present time. There is no injustice whatever to the witnesses, but there is an injustice to law and order that this regulation should continue. I hope the Home Secretary will take steps to have it altered, if it is still in force, and that the police shall know that it is not necessary to warn the witnesses, who may toe able to give evidence in the detection of crime, that they need not answer questions.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I must, in the first place, thank the Committee for the tone and the manner in which they have discussed this Vote. As the official head for the time being of the police services of this country, so far as there is any official head of the police services, I would like to thank many hon. Members who have paid a tribute to the efficiency of that force, and not only to thank them, but myself to join in such a tribute. The police are one of our British institutions in which as a nation we take most pride, and whatever defects there may be from time to time, here and there, on the whole we can claim that our Police Force yields to none, and is, we believe, superior to all in efficiency, and in what is the first condition of efficiency, honesty. One or two hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite have asked me to say today what I should have said on the Home Office Vote if the rules of order had
not excluded matters specifically relating to the police Vote. I therefore wish to make a few observations with regard to the effectiveness of the police in the control of crime, having in view the great concern which is felt throughout the nation, due to the increase of certain classes of crime.
Of course, if the police were greatly increased in their numbers, they would probably be much more effective than they are now in the suppression of crime, but there the question of cost comes in. Before the War, the police of England and Wales cost just upon £7,000,000 a year, to the Exchequer and to the rates together. Last year they cost,, not £7,000,000, but £21,000,000, three times as much, although the numbers have increased only from 54,000 to 58,000. The cost of pensions alone has gone up from £1,300,000 to £5,000,000. So that this very heavy cost of the Police Force has to be taken into account, particularly in these days of financial stringency, when we consider the possibility of a great increase in their numbers as a means of coping with crime.
It is said and said quite rightly that there is a considerable proportion of the force devoted to other duties instead of being concentrated upon their primary purpose, and that is so, although I think that somewhat exaggerated ideas are entertained as to the extent to which the police are diverted, particularly to traffic duties. In the Metropolitan Police district the number of policemen allocated to traffic control is 7.5 per cent. of the whole body. Of every 100 police, 92 are devoted to the general duties of the police, and between seven and eight are devoted to traffic control. The actual numbers are: 1,500 devoted to traffic control, out of 20,000. Taking the country as a whole there are 4,300 policemen engaged on traffic points. The cost to the country as a whole is about £1,000,000, and in the Metropolitan Police district just under £500,000.
Although the proportion is comparatively small, it is undoubtedly the case that if we can save any considerable part of this man-force, highly expensive as it is highly efficient, undoubtedly we shall do so. That can be done by means of automatic light signals which have been brought into use in recent years, and which are extremely effective. The capi-
tal cost of one of those signals is roughly about the same as the annual cost of a policeman. That is to say, you make your expenditure for one year and you save the annual cost of the same amount ever after. It is greatly to be desired that the provision of these signals should be proceeded with as rapidly as may be. The Ministry of Transport and the Home Office are in constant consultation in these matters, but the actual control rests with the local authorities. Particularly in London I trust that the borough councils, under the influence of the public opinion of the citizens of London, will proceed with somewhat greater rapidity than they have done hitherto, with the provision of these admittedly effective means of controlling traffic and securing public economy.

Dr. SALTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman now suggesting that the cost of these traffic control signals should be shifted to the ratepayer and taken off the taxpayer?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Already the Ministry of Transport makes a grant of 60 per cent. of the cost of the signals, which I think is not an unfair division as between the taxpayer and the ratepayer. With regard to the appointment of other kinds of traffic controllers—traffic wardens, not policemen, that has been tried, and is effective up to a point, but there is no very great saving involved, and, at a recent conference of the authorities concerned was not very much favoured. The general opinion was that it would be more economical and in every way more advantageous to provide a greater number, and at a rapid rate of progress, of the automatic signals. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) asked what was being done in order to put a stop to the depredations of motor bandits. That can be achieved partly by a better allocation of the forces that are available, and the Commissioner of Police in London particularly, and I have no doubt the chief constables elsewhere, have the matter very much in mind. The whole efforts of Lord Trenchard are devoted to securing that the police shall be, to as great an extent as possible, allocated to their primary purpose of stopping crime rather than to those minor duties of preventing the' more trivial offences to which reference has been made.
Furthermore, within the last two or three weeks, as the Committee is aware, the regulations have been altered which forebade the locking of private motor-ears parked in London. That rule was enforced because of the difficulties of moving cars that were locked and were parked too closely together. The Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Transport have come to the conclusion that it is more important to enable the owners of cars to take the necessary precautions against their cars being stolen, especially since it is stolen cars that are used for the depredations of bandits. The police authorities in London and elsewhere have established a system of mobile patrols, equipped with motor vehicles of their own which are able to exercise some check upon this class of crime. We are taking steps, and I hope the House will permit it, to promote the merger of the smaller police forces. There are 180 Police Forces in this country, too many for efficiency. That is a matter that requires legislation, and it would not be in order for me to dwell upon it on this occasion.
Lastly, in this connection, and this is a point of very great importance, those tradesmen who are purveyors of valuable commodities really have the duty to take some measures for their own protection. At the present time stocks of great value are frequently left wholly unprotected, and a mere pane of glass is regarded as sufficient security for goods that may be of the value of thousands of pounds. That used not to be so in former times, when stocks of great value were protected by grilles and in other ways. The Commissioner of Police would be glad if tradesmen would take what may be regarded as reasonable precautions, and it would not be a bad thing if the insurance companies who insure the stocks against robbery were to bring pressure to bear upon those concerned to induce them to take the necessary measures.
However much we may desire to see the police devoted to other matters than traffic, the fact remains that they have a very real public duty to do what they can to prevent dangerous driving, and to save the lives of our fellow-countrymen. The figures for road accidents for 1931 have not been published, but they will be issued in a few days. I will give to the Committee now, since I know it will be
interested, the advance figures. They show an exceedingly serious state of things. The number of persons killed in Great Britain in road accidents last year was no less than 6,691, and the number injured was 202,119. Every day of the year 18 people are killed and 553 are injured on our roads. It is true that there is this one favourable feature— that the number of fatal accidents' last year shows a reduction on the previous year of 614. On the other hand, the non-fatal accidents show an increase of no fewer than 24,224.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to convey to the Committee that the whole of these accidents are due to the fault of the motorist, when they are, in so many cases, entirely due to the fault of the pedestrian; and I hope the police will exercise their authority in arresting pedestrians who walk about to the danger of other traffic.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has the hon. and gallant Member ever heard of a motor car which complained of having been hurt by a pedestrian?

Sir H. SAMUEL: No, but it is not seldom that motors have to swerve in order to avoid pedestrians, with great damage to themselves. I do not know that we have yet reached the stage when it will be necessary to legislate in this matter and to invert the old law which required every motor car to be preceded by a pedestrian carrying a red flag, and require every pedestrian to be preceded by a motor cyclist carrying a red flag. But certain it is that there are some cases in which the pedestrians are to blame for accidents, and any animadversions which I may make are directed to all who use the roads. One other favourable feature appears in the statistics of the past year. They show the favourable effect of one piece of legislation passed by this House, namely, the Section of the Road Traffic Act of 1930 which deals with pillion-riding on motor-cycles. Parliament passed a Section prohibiting any person from riding as a passenger on a motorcycle, otherwise than seated astride the cycle, on a proper seat, securely fixed, and the consequence of that enactment has been that fatal accidents to pillion-riders, or to bicycles on which pillion-
riders were seated, have declined by 27 per cent. in a single year, and there has been a smaller decline in the number of non-fatal accidents in that class.
The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) urged that no fees should be charged in certain cases where the police are called upon to give evidence with regard to street accidents, and the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) raised the same point. At first sight I thought that there was a great deal of force in the hon. and learned Member's contention, and I went into it very carefully. It is not, by the way, the bureaucracy of the Home Office which has imposed any new rules. It was the Central Conference of Chief Constables of England and Wales who thought it was necessary to charge some fee for these interviews. They are exceedingly numerous and the great majority of them are given in respect of occurrences which do not involve any legal proceedings at all. In the Metropolitan district area alone, the interviews number about 4,000 a year and are a serious encroachment on police time. If a policeman is interviewed off duty and a fee is charged, it is charged where the policeman receives payment from the police authority in respect of the duty which he has to perform in his own time.
If in any case there is any danger of hardship or any indication that the person cannot afford the fee, the instruction is that the fee should be waived. But, in general, if no fee were charged there would be no limitation upon what I may call the fishing interviews that policemen might be required to give either to persons who were thinking of bringing a possible case, or to persons who might be interested in the matter in some way or another, without litigation being involved. In these days of economy, when all legitimate sources of public income ought to be husbanded, I submit that it would not be right to have the official time of officers of the State taken up by interviews with persons for the private purposes of those persons without some fee being charged for the services of those State officials. That is the reason and the justification given by the chief constables for the action which they have taken.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the interests
of economy, but what about the economy of the poor people who want this information? Is the economy of the private citizen not to be considered?

Mr. CAPORN: Do the chief constables advocate the same proceeding when they wish to interview possible witnesses in connection with police prosecutions?

Sir H. SAMUEL: That, obviously, is an entirely different matter. It is the duty of every citizen to give evidence to assist the enforcement of the law, just as it is the duty of every citizen to assist the police in arresting a person in the commission of a crime, and there can be no question of paying a person for assisting in what is, normally, the citizen's duty in that regard.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: And is it not the duty of every policeman to give this information if it is required?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The cases are not quite on all fours. With regard to the suggestion that the police are now hampered in the preliminary examination of persons who may be brought forward as witnesses in some criminal case, I have, on many occasions, answered questions in the House of Commons on that point. There is a widespread misapprehension regarding it. There has been no change in practice which hampers the police in any way. The complaints which I have received and the allegations made do not come from any of the police authorities but only from the newspapers which have secured from their contributors a series of startling articles suggesting that the increase of crime is due to the fact that policemen cannot examine possible witnesses without warning them beforehand and telling them that they need not reply unless they wish. There is no such instruction at all. They have not to warn any person before taking a statement. Of course, if a person is likely to be charged with the commission of an offence, necessarily that person must be warned beforehand, but that is not by any instruction on the part of the police authorities. That is done under the judges' rules, because the judges have laid down the very proper and, indeed, elementary consideration of justice that a person must not be led into making a statement which incriminates himself without knowing that he is doing so. Apart from that there is no restriction
such as is suggested and I have received no complaint from any police authority in London or in any part of the country that they are in any degree hampered in their efforts for the suppression of crime.
The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) and one or two other hon. Members have raised certain questions relating to police administration and the relations of the Police Forces with the police authorities in general and the Home Office in particular. Perhaps I may be permitted to say how much I regret that on this occasion we have not the skilled and expert assistance of Mr. Hayes, who, on previous occasions of this kind, took so active a part in connection with these matters. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) said it was necessary to have a Police Force which was fully satisfied.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Content.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Is there any force or any group of men, or, indeed, any individual in the world, who could be described as fully satisfied? No doubt there is dissatisfaction in the Police Force with the cuts that had to be made in their pay, just as there is among teachers, among the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, among the unemployed and among other classes, all of whom have had to contribute to the economies which the condition of the national finances requires. With respect to the holding of open meetings in order that that dissatisfaction might be voiced, I would remind the Committee that Parliament, soon after the War, gave long and anxious consideration to the right form of organisation to be authorised for the Police Force. It was seen that legitimate grievances might arise, and had in fact arisen, which ought to have means of expression, and that opportunities ought to be given by which full attention would be paid to them.
On the other hand, it was never contemplated that the Police Force should engage in what may be called ordinary trade union methods of organisation and propaganda. It was considered that, being a disciplined force, they must consent to work under certain restrictions. I think that was fully understood by the police themselves. An hon. Member has asked in this connection, "What about Cabinet Ministers?" But no one would
suggest that Cabinet Ministers are a disciplined force. The Police Federation, which was established and authorised under the Act passed at that time, has proved of very great value, and I should be the last to desire or to do anything to lessen its prestige or hamper its proper activities, but I would point out that the Act then passed did not contemplate anything in the nature of what are called open meetings. In fact, Section (1) of the Act says
The Police Federation and every branch thereof shall be entirely independent of and unassociated with any body or person outside the police service.
That is a very clear indication of what Parliament had in mind. Then, Section (4) of that Act provided that the Federation should be represented on the Police Council. The Police Council consists not only of the representatives of the Federation, but of the police authorities including the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and representatives of the Home Office, and the Police Council is the main method of communication between the Police Forces as a whole and the Home Secretary. [HON. MEMBEES: "When has it met?"] It has had two meetings since I have been Home Secretary, which is not very many months, both of which meetings I attended. Between those meetings its deliberations were carried on by a committee which was appointed to go into these very matters of police pay, and on that committee the Police Federation was fully represented. Certainly the Police Council will meet again before any definite further steps are taken in these matters. Indeed there is a statutory obligation on the Home Secretary to consult with the Police Council before any serious or important measures are taken which affect the main interests of the Police Force.
6.0 p.m.
It is true, however, that open meetings have been authorised from time to time, not in accordance with any statutory obligation but because it was considered by previous Home Secretaries that it would be not unwise in the circumstances to do so. During my tenure of office also I have authorised two such meetings to consider this question of police cuts, one great meeting in the Albert Hall and another in Manchester. It was not considered advisable, however, that there
should be anything in the nature of a public propagandist campaign throughout the country. It was thought that that would be exceedingly disturbing to the Police Force and would not serve a useful purpose. But, certainly, full opportunity will be given to the Police Federation, working in accordance with its ordinary statutory machinery, to make proper representations. I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Ardwick (Captain Fuller), who asked whether it was the case that the ordinary organisation meetings of the Police Federation in the Provinces were being prohibited and that meetings were only to be allowed in London. That is not so. There has been no change effected in that respect. Nor is it the case that Lord Trenchard has in any way travelled outside his authority with regard to members of the Metropolitan Police attending open meetings elsewhere.
One other point with regard to the organisation of the Metropolitan Police was raised by some hon. Members opposite, who asked why it is that certain military or air officers have been appointed to Scotland Yard. I share the view that it is most important to take no steps which would in any way result in the militarisation of our police forces, but it is far from being the case, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, that it looked as though certain posts were being reserved for highly placed people. That is very far indeed from being the case. When I came to my office of Home Secretary, or very shortly afterwards, Lord Byng informed me that, for reasons of health, he was compelled to resign his post; and it was a matter of very grave responsibility to find a first-rate organiser and a man of commanding authority to undertake the difficult task of maintaining the Metropolitan Police in a state of high efficiency and even of improving its efficiency.
Several names were suggested to me, which did not seem to fulfil the requirements of the situation, and I approached Lord Trenchard with a view to securing his services to the State. He, having retired from the public service, had engaged in activities which he was most loth to give up, and it was only when it was put to him as a public duty that
he should accept this office that he consented to place his great services at our disposal. So that the suggestion that this post has been kept open for the advantage of any highly placed individual is absolutely contrary to the facts.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: When was the last civilian appointed to high office in the police?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I think Sir Edward Henry, in my time, a very efficient Commissioner of Police, and he was a civilian. Colonel Drummond, who has been appointed, not to exercise, as a matter of fact, any administrative functions of command of the Police Force, was with Lord Trenchard for many years as his assistant in the plans which he had to carry out in the Air Ministry, and Lord Trenchard asked that he should be allowed to bring him to Scotland Yard as his own personal assistant, in a temporary post. That is the explanation of the appointment of Colonel Drummond. The only other appointment that has been made at Scotland Yard from outside, so far as I am aware, during the last few months is that of a barrister, who was appointed in order to strengthen the legal side of that department.
With regard to the Police Orphanage, as to which a question was asked, I am afraid that I cannot take responsibility there. I think that these charities of the force should be managed by their own boards, in consultation no doubt with the Commissioner, but should not be made the responsibility of the Home Office.

Dr. SALTER: I understand that the desires expressed on the part of the representatives of the police have been over-ridden by Lord Trenchard.

Sir H. SAMUEL: No, not so far as I know. The action of Lord Trenchard was with regard to the very large number of members of committees and sub-committees who were granted time off in order to devote themselves to the affairs of the Orphanage. When Lord Trenchard went into the question of the proper allocation of the Police Force, and desired to see how many men were actually available at any one time for real police duties, he found that a very considerable number were occupied in one way or another, thereby weakening
the effective strength of the force. One of these points that he went into was the number of members of committees that attended to the affairs of this Orphanage, and he found that the time off was really most excessive—I have seen the figures, and if I could give them to the Committee. I am sure every hon. Member would agree. But when he desired to reduce the number, there was objection taken, and as a consequence, I understand, some of the committees are not now functioning, but I think that Lord Trenchard would be most glad if at any time they would resume their activities.
With respect to cases of accident compensation, to which reference was made, that, I know, is a matter of serious importance to those persons concerned. They are technical questions. I have not familiarised myself with the particular cases mentioned, and I would ask leave of the hon. Members to take a little time. I will go into them personally and see if any injustice has been done or avoidable hardship inflicted, in which case I will endeavour to find a remedy.
Police cautions to motorists is another point which was raised, as to why it is that the policeman is told to enter the facts in his notebook but not to inform the erring motorist of what he has done. Well, a policeman must enter everything in his notebook. What happens on the stage or in a music hall, when anything occurs and a policeman takes part in it, is that instantly he draws out his notebook. In many countries, automatically, when anything occurs, the policeman produces his revolver; the British policeman produces his notebook.
But I can give an assurance that these entries that are made, without inviting the concurrence of the motorist concerned, will never be used in evidence against him. They are merely in order to provide a record, in order to enable a constable to show that he has taken some action on some occasions, without the necessity- of issuing a summons or bringing any kind of charge. If the motorist was shown the entry in the notebook, immediately an argument might arise, and he would ask for an opportunity of making representations, whereas many of these cases are extremely trivial, and much the best thing is for the policeman, in a sensible, fatherly way, to rebuke the motorist who is at fault, and let the
thing be put aside and no one trouble any more about it. If he has to make an entry in his notebook, it is merely a matter of police routine.

Dr. SALTER: Is it not a fact that an order has been issued to the police that they are to make entries in their notebooks but not to do so in the presence of the motorist who is cautioned, but to wait till he has gone and has disappeared before doing it?

Mr. GROVES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the facts in the policeman's notebook are reported to the local police, so that if at any future time the erring motorist is unfortunately brought before the court, this particular entry from the policeman's notebook will be brought up against him? Is it not the fact that the policeman's notebooks are recorded in the area?

Sir H. SAMUEL: They cannot be brought against him, and they are not recorded for the purpose of being brought up in court in the case of any more serious charge being made against the motorist.
With regard to special constables, I am grateful to the hon. Member opposite for mentioning this matter, because it will enable me to make a statement which, I trust, will remove misapprehensions. It is the case that a number of special constables have been invited to present themselves for training. They have not been called up; there is no compulsion about it. It is purely voluntary, not in order that they should supplement the police force and carry out the ordinary duties of a policeman, but solely in order that, if any emergency should arise and the regular police should be devoted to other purposes, there should be a reserve of special constables who would have some elementary knowledge of the simpler duties of the policeman and able to do some of the work of the policeman while the main body of the force was devoted to some other and more important duties. The Government do not consider that there is any such emergency even in sight, but as a mere matter of ordinary routine it is thought desirable that this large and valuable body of special constables should be given some little insight into the ordinary work of the police force; and the special
constables themselves desire to have an opportunity of obtaining this knowledge.
The only instruction that has been given to them is, for any man who wished to undertake it, during a period of three or four days in the year, and on each of those days for a period of from two to four hours, so that it is obvious that they are not being trained with a view to performing the ordinary functions of policemen in ordinary times, and none of the police stations in the Metropolis has ever more than eight of these special constables being employed at any one time. The average is about three, and none of them have been employed for more than six periods in a year— most of them only for two or for three periods. So that the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Bermondsey was made under a misapprehension, when he said that the Commissioner proposed to use them in normal times to take over the duties of the ordinary police. That is not in the least the intention. They are not intended to supplement the ordinary police force in ordinary times in any way, or to share, however desirable it might be that everyone possible should share, in the detection of ordinary crime or the arrest of criminals. I should be very sorry to think that a special constable who had been trained for four days in the year for four hours at a time was in any way qualified to perform the ordinary duties of the Metropolitan Police.
Let me come now to the suggestion made by one hon. Member that the women police were perhaps of no value and that we might contemplate their disappearance. That is certainly not the view either of the Home Office or of the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, nor, I believe, of the general body of chief constables. The women police for certain functions—not, of course, for every function—are of very great utility. The Committee may have noticed the increase in the number of offences against young girls. That is to some extent a real increase, but it is partly a statistical increase, more offences having come to light; and offences that would previously have been concealed, owing to the natural reluctance of those concerned to allow the facts to be known, are now often reported to the police for the reason that there are women police to whom these
offences may be reported. Therefore, the increase is partly statistical, but it is exceedingly desirable that these offences should be brought to light, in order that condign punishment may follow where the criminal can be detected.
In the Metropolitan Police district, on the other hand, so far from desiring the abolition of the women police, a considerable increase in their number had been planned, but difficulty arose with regard to their housing, and afterwards questions of finance have prevented that increase; but two measures have been taken within the last few months. In the first place, I have issued new regulations throughout the country for the employment of women police, which gives them a more assured status and entitles them to perform more definite duties; and, in the second place, the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police has reorganised the women police service in London and, with a view to making it more effective, is concentrating them to a somewhat greater degree in the central parts of London, and is taking experimental measures with a view to seeing how the force of women police in London can be most effectively used. The head of them, Miss Peto, whose services are well known, has now been given the rank of Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police Force. The Commissioner regards this force as of real value, and we all hope that when the finances of the country allow, it will be further expanded. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) asked whether there might not be quite so much emphasis on zeal which might be misdirected zeal in the Police Force.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I did not argue against the demonstration of zeal in the Police Force; my concern was as to the precise definition given to the word "zeal" by the Police Commissioner.

Sir H. SAMUEL: It is quite obvious what zeal in the Police Force means. It means that it should be active and energetic in the prevention of crime, and, next to the prevention of crime, in detecting crime after it has been committed, and in catching the criminal. It is not a good thing that any individual member of it should feel that, irrespective of whether he is active or inactive, industrious or idle, he will go on with
automatic improvements in his pay, with full increments and promotion following almost as a matter of course. It is very much to the credit of the able administrator who is now the head of the Metropolitan Police that he is endeavouring to promote a high point of efficiency in the great body of men under his command, and I have very great expectations that the results of that will be seen in the diminution of the too high figures of criminal activities which prevail in the Metropolis. I think that I have dealt with every one of the points that have been raised by hon. Members, and unless they have any desire that I should answer any other points, I will ask that the Vote should be withdrawn so that the Committee may proceed to discuss the Prison Vote.

Mr. RHYS: With regard to the amalgamation of the Police Forces, I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that steps were being taken to amalgamate the smaller forces. Has it been decided to amalgamate all the borough Police Forces, and is the decision that of the committee of inquiry, or that of the Government?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am completely dissatisfied with the answer of the Home Secretary on the question of fees being demanded by the police for evidence in civil actions. The Home Office sent out the Circular, and it is no good telling us that the chief constables are to blame. Herbert Spencer once pointed out that it was absurd that, if you had a silk handkerchief stolen, the whole Police Force would try to find the thief, but that if somebody did you a civil wrong you had to go to the expense yourself of getting justice. Civil justice is as important as, and often more important than, criminal justice. The Home Secretary said that the private citizen should assist the police by giving evidence free of charge and even help to catch criminals. It is equally the duty of the police to help the private citizen. He tells us that in London there were 4,000 interviews of police for evidence in civil actions. Will he toll us how many police are in London?

Sir H. SAMUEL: 20,000.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: With the number of policemen in London, that amounts to about one interview in five years for every policeman. Yet that is given as
an excuse for this levy! The fact is that the chief constables have made a mistake and thought they would never be discovered, and the Home Secretary is covering them up. It is a scandal and a disgrace. If a citizen wants to get the evidence of a policeman, simply because be is in uniform and not dressed in plain clothes the citizen has to go to the chief constable and pay a fee into the police exchequer. It is obstructing justice, and I hope that sufficient pressure will be brought to bear on chief constables and the Home Office to abandon this scandalous practice.

Mr. LANSBURY: Although I have no cause of complaint to make to the right hon. Gentleman, I regret that he did not see his way to make a statement on the work of the Department concerning the Metropolitan Police. He will remember that at the time of Lord Byng's appointment there was great discussion in the Press and in the House as to the disorganised condition of Scotland Yard. A number of persons were dismissed and we were told that a complete reorganisation of the department was taking place. It may be, of course, a matter of no importance to Members of the Committee or to members of the public, but at the time people were given to understand that Lord Byng was appointed specifically to reorganise Scotland Yard and to clear out certain things that were wrong there. The Committee is entitled, now that a new chief has been appointed, to be told just what has happened. Of what has the clearing out consisted? What new arrangements have been made to prevent the kind of scandals that had happened, about which there is no question, because of the prosecutions and discharges that took place? What steps have been taken to prevent such things happening in the future? When a Vote comes on for discussion, it is usual for the Minister to make a statement on that kind of subject without any of us asking for it, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us just what Lord Byng did in the way of reorganisation at Scotland Yard, so that we may know the value of his appointment.
With regard to the Police Federation, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will permit the holding of a meeting
such as has been banned up to the present. If that is not the case, I only want to point out that the people who have addressed this sort of meeting are not drawn from any particular party. All sorts of political opinions are represented at the Police Federation meetings. If I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman in what he said, I shall be glad to be corrected, but I understood him to say that further meetings will be held. If that is not so, I want to put in a plea that such further meetings should be permitted, for the simple reason that ever since 1919 these meetings have been held and have been addressed by such respectable people as Lord Remnant, the hon. and learned Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Cassels), the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. F. Briant), the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies), and the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee)—a pretty good mixture.

Mr. BUCHANAN: They are too tame.

Mr. LANSBURY: If the hon. Gentleman is right, the right hon. Gentleman will permit the meetings to go on because, if they are so tame no harm will come from the meetings, and there is no reason witty they should be stopped. Apparently, however, the right hon. Gentleman has prevented one meeting, and I press very strongly that they should be allowed to continue. The right hon. Gentleman and others have talked about politics entering into the Police Force. The two last heads of the Metropolitan Police have been members of the House of Lords. I am not sure whether that is considered a political assembly or not; I do not think that it is a very judicial assembly, except, of course, in regard to its function as a court of justice. There Lord Trenehard or his predecessor can, if they please, influence Members, even though they are not allowed to take part publicly in the Debates. I wonder whether a member of the Metropolitan Police would be allowed to become a Member of this House. I know that the answer would be that he could not devote the time to the business. But that
is beside the point. Would he be allowed to stand? He might resign his position afterwards. I cannot see why the head of the Police Force should be a Member of the Legislature to which he is responsible, and I think that it is quite wrong.
I have another objection to it. I have seen the Metropolitan Police ever since I was a child, and I have watched it come under military control. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that in the days of the Home Rule agitation public meetings were held by the party to which he belonged in this country, and especially in London, and when they were first interfered with by the police authorities, it was the Liberal party that took the lead in denouncing that interference and claiming the right of perfect freedom of public meetings. The police authorities in London sent note-takers to the meetings, and the people who made the most vehement objections to it were members of the Liberal party. That all came about because we had at the head of the police in London people who had been in the habit of controlling other people. The people do not want the Police Force to control them. What the citizens need is a Police Force to preserve order and decency in public streets, and to protect the citizen from attacks by evilly-disposed persons. They have nothing to do with opinions and with men standing at the corner of the street denouncing the Government, as the Radicals used to denounce the Government, in very strong language.
6.30 p.m.
Nowadays there seems to be a tendency for a sort of censorship of the kind of speaking that should take place. It is due very largely to the militarisation of the London Police Force. Everyone who had any experience of Sir Edward Henry when he was Commissioner of Police will say that there was less fault finding with him and his administration than there is at the present time, with regard to demonstrations, meetings, discussions and so on. I think the reason was that Sir Edward Henry had another view of the duties of a Police Commissioner. I do do not think we want a semi military force as a Police Force. We do not need all this regimentation and drilling and so on. We need a Police Force for quite other purposes than those for which we need a military force. I also want to point out
that the men in the Metropolitan Police have no hope of ever being able to win the place right at the top. They pass out, very often, at the age when their chief comes into the force. I think that is altogether bad, and I certainly do not subscribe to the doctrine that there is not a man in civilian life or in the civilian police forces capable of taking charge of the Metropolitan Police. I have never accepted that position; I have argued the point with many friends and colleagues, and I am arguing it to-day with this Committee. I deny that if Lord Trenchard had not been available for the post no other person of similar qualifications could have been found. Therefore, I want to enter my protest against his appointment, and to say that I hope another line will be taken when a new appointment is made. Whatever the complexion of the Government may be, I hope that a civilian and, if possible, one of the officers from that service, will be given that position in future.
In any public service it is a great thing to know that one can work right through to the very top, and for the life of me I cannot see why it should not be so in the case of the Metropolitan Police. Even the Commissioner whose administration, as I have said, was so generally approved, was brought here from India. Next time the appointment has to be made I hope it will be filled from the ranks of the force itself, or, if we must go outside the force, that a civilian will be chosen. As we have a civilian head of the Home Office who is after all Lord Trenchard's chief, we can with quite as much reason have a civilian head of the Police Force.
Next I wish to say a word about the increase of crime, and the fact that we must not, apparently, increase the Police Force on account of the cost involved. It is pretty false economy to save money and leave the property of the citizens open to attack, and I shall have something more to say on that point in a moment. I do not propose to weary the Committee with the figures which have been published in the various returns, because the Home Secretary has admitted the serious increase in crime, but to say, in face of that state of affairs, that the national finances will not allow us to employ sufficient people to check crime and, if possible, to prevent it, is an extraordinary position
to take up. I should have thought that was an attitude which no one could defend. As to juvenile crime, which has increased to such a terrible degree, I do not believe any increase in the numbers of the Police Force will ever deal with that problem, under ordinary police methods and without tackling the causes, though it is impossible to go into that aspect of things on this Vote. The economy campaign which has resulted in driving youngsters on to the streets, giving them nothing else to do but just waste their time, and in many cases forcing them to become dependent upon sisters and brothers for their maintenance, has been one of the reasons for their taking to crime—following the criminal instincts which some lawyers and philosophers say all of us possess in more or less degree.
The police in the Metropolis could do a service to these boys and young people. In Brighton and Norwich there are magnificent clubs, run very largely by the police, which have proved extremely successful in keeping boys off the streets and finding them occupation during the day, indeed, often finding them permanent work. We have a good many clubs in London, but not nearly enough, and I should have thought that if somebody dropped a hint to the various divisions in South-East London, East London and North London, something could be done on the same lines as has been done in Brighton and Norwich. Anyone who has seen the work there must be not only gratified at what is being done but very thankful indeed to the chief constables and others who have inaugurated it. I would very much like to see something of the same kind in London.
There is nothing much else I wish to say, except that I do hope the Home Secretary is right when he tells us the special constables have not been called up for any reason other than to give them a chance of exercising themselves. [Interruption.] Well, I do not know what else it is; it was to keep them fit, I understood. But I do not know why it has been done. Perhaps my memory does not serve me well, but I do not think they have ever been called up in this way except in emergencies.

Sir H. SAMUEL: They have not been called up.

Mr. LANSBURY: No, they have not been called up, but they have been "invited"—you can have it which way you like. I saw a parade of them yesterday, and all the people in my district are certain that we are in for a very bad time. I was asked by at least a dozen people: "Why are the 'Specials' called up; what is going to happen now?" There was a great church parade of them, with a band. It may be said that they have not been called up, but they were in the same position as if they had been called up. They were in uniform, they looked smart, and, I thought, quite able to take care both of themselves and of anybody else who was making trouble. We are all wondering whether the Government, which came into being to restore peace and get rid of all the evils which the late Labour Government had created in stirring up class strife and hatred, are anticipating some sort of trouble which would necessitate bringing these men into action. It was a great pity that a, public statement such as the right hon. Gentleman made to-day was not made earlier, because I can assure him that a large number of people who walked along Bow Road yesterday were very much astonished to see this parade. They have no feeling against these "Specials," but the point is, what is the emergency for which they are being invited to show themselves, for what purpose are they being, as it were, brought back into activity?
On that point, I would like to say further that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are on the outskirts of London numbers of people who think they are very badly protected from burglars and others owing to the insufficient numbers of police available. There was an alarmist sort of statement in one of the alarmist newspapers the other day that we are going to be treated to a set of vigilance committees, who will parade at night very much as we used to parade to watch for aircraft coming over. It was said they were arming themselves with pistols and bludgeons in order to fall upon any person who might have designs upon their property. We had a very circumstantial account of one committee—how they met, what they did, and what they intended to do. I ask the
right hon. Gentleman to let it be known that such committees are quite unlawful, that they have no sort of standing at all in taking that action. If it is necessary for people to resort to such action the right hon. Gentleman ought to see to it that, in spite of the demands for economy, the Police Force is reinforced sufficiently to protect any property that may be in danger.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have one or two questions to bring forward, and, in the first place, I would like to emphasise the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) as to the right of the police to give evidence in a civil case. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Home Office, in making a charge for the police giving evidence, is setting back the hands of the clock of progress.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Not for giving evidence.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Not for giving evidence, but, what may be more important than giving evidence, for being interviewed and for their time off. It may be very much more important than the actual giving of evidence; it may be finding out the facts concerning a case. Other members of the community usually do that gladly and freely without charge, and for the police to take up this attitude is a very reactionary step. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the number of police, and said that, although there was an increase in crime, there was no increase in the number of police because certain measures of economy have been adopted. I am not anxious to have any increase in the number of police, and I cannot see any great need for an increase, but I do think that there is some need for a better allocation of police to different duties, more especially in connection with demonstrations and processions. Whenever there happens to be a meeting of the unemployed the police are sent in large numbers, and some of them are engaged in taking notes. No meetings of the unemployed take place either in London or the provinces without a number of police being sent to them totally disproportionate to the needs. Recently I passed one of our Employment Exchanges where there was a gathering of less than 100 persons, and the number of policemen there was much too large
for any services likely to be required of them. Why should there be all these policemen told off to stand by in numbers altogether disproportionate to the needs whenever there is a meeting of the unemployed?
The same thing happens at public demonstrations. If a, working-class demonstration takes place either in London or the Provinces and the police think it will be attended by people holding advanced views, one is amazed at the number of police sent to march with the demonstration. If it happens to be a demonstration of rich people taking part in various ceremonies attended by motor cars, and flaunting in the face of the very poor people, they can demonstrate in any way they desire, and very few policemen are sent to watch them; but when a number of miserably clad working men who are unemployed gather in the street to demonstrate their sorrow and their terrible poverty, they are immediately attended by large numbers of policemen. There is no need for an increase in the number of the Police Force, but there is need for an increase in the amount of sympathy shown by the Police Force towards the working-class people who attend demonstrations. I know that those in charge of the police say that the people attending some of those demonstrations are poor people, but that they hold advanced views, and because of that they claim that it is necessary for the police to be present in large numbers, lest something untoward might happen. I think that view is unmistakably wrong.
I have not raised the Scottish position on this subject, because that is a matter to be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I was present not long ago at a large gathering in the North of England and the number of police sent to that gathering was a disgrace to the chief constable. Whenever there is an unemployed gathering in London you see a huge number of police, although at Westminster, near the House of Commons it is necessary to have only a few policemen to keep order and protect the ordinary rights of citizens. There is a great difference in the number of police allocated in the case of a demonstration of poor people and one which is concerned mainly with rich people. I hope the Home Secretary will see that these poor people, although they may not conduct themselves in the best possible
way, are not treated harshly, because there is some excuse for the things they do in face of the shocking poverty which confronts them. It is all very well to tell these people at demonstrations that they must be complacent, but I am not surprised that in the circumstances some of them shout until they are hoarse. I think that their average conduct will compare favourably with that of any other section of the community.
I agree with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) about the police not being allowed to hold meetings, and when the right hon. Gentleman read the list of speakers at the meeting to which he alluded, I confess that I could not see why any of them should be kept from addressing the people. I should have thought that there would have been no necessity to prevent the gentlemen named in that list from addressing members of the Police Force. Whatever reason the Home Secretary may give for not allowing police meetings, I am sure that he will not say that any of the gentlemen named in the list given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley would be calculated to encourage disorder or suggest revolutionary action. It may be that some day the police will be able to get together a better list of speakers who will deliver addresses encouraging them to side with the ordinary working people instead of always siding with those in command of the country and those with property.
I want to raise again the question which I raised on the Adjournment not long ago, but I am not sure whether it will be in order. I know that you, Captain Bourne, with your usual alertness, will very properly tell me whether I shall be in order in referring to the question of the imprisonment of political prisoners. I want to ask the Home Secretary whether in the case of such prisoners the time has not arrived when in a number of cases he ought to exercise that elemency—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I am afraid, as the hon. Member himself suggested, that this is not a proper matter to discuss on the Home Office Vote.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was anxious to raise the point concerning the political
prisoners who are now in prison. I hope the Home Secretary will consider the points which I have raised. I would like to say that I recognise in the right hon. Gentleman the one Member of the Government who has made any attempt to preserve his own political viewpoint, and while many other members of the Liberal party have gone over to the reactionary Conservatives, the right hon. Gentleman has maintained his own ideas. In a previous Debate the right hon. Gentleman raised the question of juvenile crime, and anyone who read the figures which he gave in his speech must have been appalled at the terrible increase. In that Debate a comparison was made between Glasgow, and London and Liverpool and other great towns. In one of the districts which I represent the proportion is six boys arrested for juvenile offences compared with one in some of the richer districts. Nobody can tell me that the boys with the higher proportion of crime are worse, naturally, than the boys in the other districts to which I have referred, because they are not born with six times the amount of original sin. The reason for this is poverty and their miserable conditions, and you find that both in England and Scotland the police devote a large amount of their time to juvenile crimes of that kind.
7.0 p.m.
In the district in London in which I have lived for seven or eight years there is quite a different relationship between the police and the children than there is in very poor districts. There seems to have grown up the opinion that in working class districts the children are in the habit of playing in the streets and smashing windows, but I would like to impress upon the Home Secretary that there ought to be a different outlook on the part of the police towards the people living in squalor and poverty than there is in the rich districts. Take the display given by university undergraduates on certain occasions in the West End of London. They are allowed any amount of licence. They carry on, without interference, all manner of horseplay, and they show almost contempt for the police and the regulations. On the other hand, the poor people, with very little outlet for their everyday enjoyment, are imprisoned in a disgraceful fashion for very trivial offences. One has only to look at the statistics to see that the most appalling increase in juvenile crime comes from the
poorer sections of the community. I say-to the Home Secretary, who has had some connection with Radicalism and Radicals, that he ought to apply himself to this problem, which cannot be met by making more rigid laws, but by giving those young people more places to play. One matter which has a tremendous effect on the size of this Vote arises out of the administration of the means test. In Battersea, where I live, one could see how the unemployed, if they had a shilling or two to spare, used to take out their children, but now, owing to the operation of the means test and other restrictions, that margin has been cut off, with the result that there is a heavy increase in this Vote because of juvenile crime, which is owing to false economy being practised in other directions. Although it is not directly connected with this Vote, the Home Secretary ought to apply himself to the consideration of the appalling increase in juvenile crime, and, if unemployment benefit is connected with it, he ought to raise the matter with his colleagues and see that these measures of false economy are not practised at the expense of the young. With regard to the other point, I hope that he will allow the unemployed to demonstrate without large numbers of police following them on every side. Surely he can trust them just as he trusts the rich, because they are as capable of conducting themselves in a decent and orderly fashion as any other section of the community.

Mr. HOWARD: I cannot allow the statements made by the hon. Member to pass without some criticism. He has pictured the police as an organised force whose only function is to protect the rich and to attack the poor. That is a direct misrepresentation of the facts of the case. No one who knows the poor streets of London—and I have been brought up among the poor people of London—and has seen the solicitude of the police to help the poor, could have made that statement. Young children and elderly men and women are helped in every way by the police in the busy streets of this great Metropolis. When processions of unemployed take place, it is necessary that there should be a large body of police escorting those processions but not because they are made up of poor men indignant at their position, who might
do desperate things like he or I in that position. Those are not the men that need to be guarded by the police, but the paid agitators of Communist opinion, who are using these poor people for their own fiendish ends, and would lead them into smashing windows and causing destruction to property and even loss of life unless there was an adequate police force to look after them. Those are the people the police have to look after, and not the poor unemployed themselves. In my district a policeman was on duty at an Unemployment Exchange when a Communist gang turned up from an open-air meeting nearby, knocked him down, and rendered him unconscious and he had to be taken to hospital. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we should allow our guardians of the law to be treated like that through the action of conspirators, who are making plots in the back streets? We have a duty to the police to see that, when they are put on duty at an Employment Exchange, there are sufficient of their comrades there to protect them against attacks of that kind. The hon. Member alleges that juvenile crime is due to poverty, and states that in the poor districts of Glasgow there are six times as many child criminals as in the residential areas.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have allowed the hon. Member to say everything up to this point, but I must protest that I did not say there were six times as many child criminals. I said there were six times as many children brought up and convicted of crime, but I did not say they were child criminals, or anything like that.

Mr. HOWARD: I do not think that there is much difference, but I have allowed the hon. Member to make his explanation. It is true that there are six times as many children arrested in the poor districts as in the residential areas, but, when he says that it is due to poverty, that is not so. I know the district of Clerkenwell near here, which is a poor district, where we have gangs of young criminals who entice into their gangs boys who are well brought up and whose homes are not of the poverty-stricken nature that he asserts the capitalist system produces. I have in mind a boy I know personally, who from 15 to 20 has had 25 different situations but has
never kept one of them for more than three weeks, because he is in the hands of a gang of youthful criminals in. the Clerkenwell district. He is now serving a sentence of three months, after having been sent away three times. He has brought misery to his home and to his sisters, whose goods he has pillaged from time to time, and he has practically destroyed their home. That boy has never been forced to theft because of poverty. It is entirely due to the associations he finds in that poor district of London. I know of many cases of a similar kind.
I would suggest for consideration by the Home Secretary that, if we are to get rid of the juvenile crime in our midst, we shall have to alter the system by which, after having sent a boy to Borstal or any other institution, we allow him to come back to his own district to be once more drawn into the influence of these gangs. It is a. sheer waste of time to send a boy to one of these institutions and then to allow him to return to his own district, because a boy has not the moral courage to get out of their influence when once he comes back. He is looked upon as a hero and is forced to go back into his ways of crime. If a scheme could be found by which a boy, having come from an institution of a reforming nature, was then sent to a situation in a different part of the country amid an entirely different environment, these boys would have an opportunity to lead a straight career, as they so often wish to do. I resent very much the imputation of the hon. Member opposite in suggesting that the Police Force of this country is used to protect the rich and to tyrannise the poor. That is not the case. It is there for one object, to preserve law and order, and the disorder which it has to prevent is disorder of a serious kind. As to his references to the "rags" of college students, no one seriously believes that the motives behind a rag are in any way comparable with the motives behind the Communist agitators.

Mr. LANSBURY: Would the hon. Member ask the Home Secretary to give him the figures in regard to juvenile crime, which he gave us when he made a statement on the previous occasion? The hon. Member will find that the greatest rise in juvenile crime has taken place in the dis-
tricts of the country where there has been the greatest unemployment and that it has risen as unemployment has risen.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has started a magnificent hare, but I assure him I am not going to be drawn into the trap and hunt. I wish to raise the question of traffic control on which I was ruled out of order one Friday afternoon when you, Captain Bourne, were particularly active. I was then told I was not to raise it on the Home Office Vote, but on the Police Vote. There was a time, when there was, very little traffic in London and it was all horse traffic, when the regulation of traffic by the police was probably a very good thing, but to-day, with motor traffic, it is a specialised job and there is no reason at all why the police of London should be used for this particular duty. I have always advocated that this duty should be performed by another force altogether paid out of the Road Fund from the contributions of the motorists themselves. It should not be a charge on the Home Office at all but should be administered for the motorist who pays for the benefit he is receiving.
It may be said that traffic regulation is a duty of the policeman but soon, with the present Commissioner of Police, we shall have aerial policemen looking after and directing the arrivals by air at Croydon. There is no more justification for the police looking after road traffic than for their looking after traffic in the air. The policeman of London is really a very bad administrator of traffic. Traffic duty is a fatigue. There is no promotion along the lines of traffic control. It is a fatigue, and no-one takes any interest in it at all, and consequently it is badly done. Once, describing it in the "Times" and complaining of the administration of the traffic in this city, I said that we were rapidly becoming a city constipated with constables. The general feeling of policemen is that they have got to stop traffic, not get it along. If anyone questions me whether their conduct of traffic is good or bad, let me quote the convincing fact that during the police strike the traffic of London never went better. When anyone claims that the police of London administer the traffic admirably, let them think of that. I hope that the Home
Office will consider some scheme whereby traffic administration may be taken from the police. Traffic control, which is a specialised job, should be done by the Ministry of Transport and paid for by the motorists who get the benefit of it.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I wish to add a brief postscript to my observations earlier, as two or three questions have been raised to which the Committee would desire me to give an answer. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys) raised the merger of police forces. That is now before a Select Committee of this House, and one must await the report and recommendations of the Committee before introducing any legislation. The right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) asked what had been the outcome of Lord Byng's administration. There have been a number of prosecutions, and stern action has been taken with regard to certain abuses. For the rest, there have not been any sweeping changes which can be summarised in a speech. It is rather a question of day-to-day administration to prevent abuses. That has been going on since Lord Byng's appointment, and is going on now. The morale of the section of the force affected by these events has improved, and everyone agrees that the situation is far better than it was a few years ago. With regard to the question of open meetings for the police, I am afraid I cannot add anything to the somewhat lengthy reference that I made before. As to vigilance committees, we have no knowledge of them except what we read in the newspapers, and I think they only exist there. Certainly the vigilance committees, if they do exist, have concealed their presence as effectively from the police and the authorities as they have from the criminals, and I very much question whether any of them have in fact been formed. Certainly we should lend no encouragement to any movement of that kind.
With regard to the complaint of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), that the police are too numerous in accompanying processions of the unemployed, I do not think that that is an error at all. I think that, if there is an obviously overwhelming force at hand, it is a preventive of disorder, and is far better than the suppression of disorder. When a fairly numerous force of police
has been present while these processions of unemployed have been taking place in our various ciities during the last hard winter and in the present circumstances, persons have been relieved from the temptation of creating disturbance to which they might yield if the forces of law and order were few and weak, and, therefore, in the interests of those persons themselves, as well as in the interests of law-abiding citizens, it is advisable that the police should be present in full strength. Happily, owing to the restraint of the people and the presence of the police, cases of disorder have been exceedingly few, and we have got through this last winter in a peaceful fashion. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley that we should be exceedingly careful about not suppressing the expression of opinion, and not in any way militarising our control over public meetings, and I am sure that, whoever may be the Commissioner of Police and Home Secretary, and certainly with the present Home Secretary, no measures will be taken which will in any way impair one of the most precious inheritances of the British people, namely, the right of free speech and the right of the expression of grievances. Breaches of law and order we must, of course, suppress; no one would deny that; and incitements to breaches of law and order which are amenable to the law must be stopped; but the free expression of opinion within those limits has always been safeguarded, and certainly, so far as I am concerned, I am sure my right hon. Friend will have no reason to complain of my administration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — PRISONS, ENGLAND AND WALES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £394,110, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Prison Commissioners and of the Prisons in England and Wales."—[Note— £550,000 has been voted on account.]

Dr. SALTER: I started earlier this afternoon, inadvertently, to refer to this Vote, and I now want to resume my remarks upon it which were then cut short. No party issues are raised by this Vote, and I merely want to put
forward a few constructive suggestions with regard to the further humanisation of prison and penal establishments. The first matter that I want to raise is in connection with the provision of observation centres for young offenders, and I would ask the Home Secretary to be good enough to give his particular attention to this matter. In 1927, a special Departmental Committee presented a unanimous report on the treatment of young offenders, and made a good many recommendations. Five years have passed, and practically no advance has been registered until the present Session. There is now before the House a Bill to give effect to some of the recommendations of the Committee, particularly as regards the reconstitution of the procedure of children's courts in line with modern practice. So far as regards the Departmental Committee's proposals which could be put into force by administrative action on the part of the Home Office, nothing, so far as I can ascertain, has been done. I desire to refer, in the first place, to the question of observation centres for children and young persons under remand. After the Committee's Report had been submitted to the Home Secretary, a conference was convened in the early part of 1927, representing some 60 national societies who were concerned with child welfare and the prevention of crime, and that conference asked the Home Office to give effect to this particular recommendation.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Would not that require legislation?

Dr. SALTER: I am going to suggest that it would not, but that it would be within the competence of the Home Secretary to make the necessary arrangements which I am going to outline. A similar conference was held in March of last year, when the same request was repeated in more urgent terms, and the late Home Secretary was pressed to receive a deputation on the subject. But nothing whatever has happened as a result, except that in Clause 37 of the new Children Bill the same duty is to be laid on the councils of counties and county boroughs as had previously been imposed on the London County Council, namely, the duty of providing remand homes in their respective areas. But a
remand home as such, where a child is only kept for a few days or a week, does not meet the situation. It is necessary that such an institution should be used as an observation centre for as long as may be medically or otherwise necessary, and that the Home Office should make proper administrative provisions in that regard. I will explain where we consider the present system and administration to be at fault. A child or young person charged before a juvenile or other court, if not released on bail, has to be sent to some place of detention, and the police authorities at the present time are responsible for providing these places of detention for children under 16, except in the county of London, where the London County Council has the duty of providing premises, but the regulations governing the conduct of the premises are laid down by the Home Secretary, and I believe that half the cost is provided out of this Home Office Vote. The Departmental Committee, with regard to these premises, said:
Many of the places of detention are far from satisfactory. Only in a few instances do the accommodation and facilities fulfil reasonable requirements.
As far as I can learn from persons and societies who are particularly interested in this subject, the Home Office, in the intervening years since 1927, has done nothing to secure the provision of any better accommodation or to make the improvements which were indicated by the committee. The committee said, referring to the remand homes in London, which, under the Children Bill, are to be the model for the rest of the country:
The places provided are admittedly inadequate, and it is understood that the council have had under consideration for some time the possibility of providing new and better accommodation.
That was over five years ago, and to-day the condition of things is actually worse. Not only has no additional accommodation been provided, but the circumstances in which the remand homes are carried on are positively worse. In 1925, throughout the country, 2,320 children and young persons who had been arrested and were on remand or had been committed for trial or were awaiting transfer to an institution, were sent to one of these places of detention for the time being. That number, I understand, has been in-
creasing every year since, but no additional accommodation has been provided, In London, the daily child population of the Penton Road Remand Home was 41 in the year 1925, and I believe it is 90 at the present time. Last year it was over 50. That home deals only with juveniles under 16, and no provision of special accommodation has been made for young persons between the ages of 16 and 21 who have been arrested and have not been released on bail.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have been studying this Vote very carefully since the hon. Member commenced his speech, and, so far as I can ascertain, it deals only with people after, and not before, conviction.

Dr. SALTER: With great respect, these homes are also used for the time being for persons after as well as before conviction. They are used for the double purpose, and, therefore, I would submit that I am in order in continuing my remarks on these lines. These young people between the ages of 16 and 21 are detained either in police cells or in prison cells. If they have been remanded in custody or committed for trial, they are confined in police cells, and, on the average, I find that over 2,220 young men and 350 young women between the ages of 16 and 21 are received each year in prison on remand. The departmental committee pointed out that frequently remand in custody is necessary and desirable from the point of view of having the person concerned properly examined and observed, and they not only did not object to such a procedure, but approved of it warmly. They said, however:
We have been much impressed by the views expressed to us as to the need of greater facilities for the examination and observation of young offenders.
They referred to the necessity of obtaining particulars in regard to the children's antecedents, home life, and so on, and they went on to say:
More important still is the need for estimating the personal factors, including especially mental and physical health. There is always the possibility of mental deficiency, the discovery of which would lead to special treatment. The increase in recent years of that distressing complaint, encephalytis lethargica, has emphasised the need for careful examination…. All the resources of approved medical science in relation to the function of the mind should be available
under any system such as we envisage … So far as existing places of detention of persons under 16 are concerned, little is done in the way of special examination …. In most cases the Juvenile Courts have no regular means of securing any medical examination …. Even in London the arrangements are in no sense systematised …. We are satisfied that a much better system of examination and observation is required for young offenders between 17 and 21.
7.30 p.m.
I want to point out to the Home Secretary that the necessity is now urgent, particularly having regard to the increasing number of juvenile delinquents, to which he himself has alluded, and to the very numerous cases, which, unfortunately, are increasing in proportion to the whole, where mental and moral and physical damage has been caused by encephalytis lethargica. I happen myself to know of two adolescents who were suffering from this disease and were sent to prison, whereas, had they been remanded to an observation centre, their real condition would undoubtedly have been discovered. One of them actually died in prison from the after-effects of the disease, and obviously it was cruelly wrong that he should ever have been sent to prison. The other had paralysis of the muscles of the eyeball and various other physical signs which would have led to instant detection and altogether different treatment had the measures recommended toy the Departmental Committee been carried out. I can also give the Home Secretary particulars of a case of a young man who was suffering from what is known as juvenile G.P.I.—general paralysis of the insane. He was in prison for some months before it was discovered what was the nature of the complaint from which he was suffering, when he was removed to a particular asylum where he could receive the necessary treatment. Again, surely it is very wrong that a person in these conditions should be subjected to a prison regime for some months when, had observation centres been established, or conducted on right lines, any such miscarriage of justice would have been obviated. We are behind a great many other countries in this respect. Belgium has admirable observation schools for this purpose, and a carefully graded system enables the specialists who control the institutions to decide what particular after-treatment is required. All kinds of ingenious physical
and psychological tests are employed and, as a result, the whole attitude of the authorities towards juvenile offenders has been considerably modified. All the authorities interested in the subject are unanimous as to the need for converting a number of these remand homes into proper institutions for prolonged observation. The Departmental Committee to which I have alluded recommended specifically that such institutions should be provided and maintained by the State.
At the London County Council last week there was a prolonged debate on this subject, and I understand that general dissatisfaction was expressed by speakers representing all parties at the condition of things. It was agreed on all sides that development in the direction I have indicated should be carried out. It was held, however, that it was not a matter for the County Council, but for the Home Secretary to decide the precise form under which the administration should be conducted. As a result, the Council endeavoured to shift any responsibility from itself on to the shoulders of the Home Office. As far as I apprehend the position, it is the Home Secretary's duty to take cognizance of this question and to do whatever may be necessary. I hope he will give his personal attention to the matter. I would also ask him if he could se his way to issue a circular to juvenile courts—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out that we are not on the Home Secretary's salary. We are dealing only with the prisons under his supervision.

Dr. SALTER: Again I would suggest that the cost of maintaining these remand homes is borne on the Prisons Votes and, therefore, I submit that I am in order in discussing the matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I shall be glad if the Minister will give me some guidance in this matter. As far as I can ascertain, the cost of maintaining remand homes as provided by 8 Edward 7, cap. 67, Section 110, is borne on the Police Vote and not on this Vote.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The obligation to provide remand homes falls on the police
authorities outside London, and both inside and outside London the whole cost falls on the Police Vote, from Subhead E, on page 25.

Dr. SALTER: My next point has reference to the payment of wages to men in prison. An experiment that was conducted at Wakefield, and later at Nottingham, was brilliantly successful from every point of view, and has been very strongly commented upon by the Governors of those two prisons and by the Prison Commissioners themselves in their last report. Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps, or does he intend to take steps, to extend it, and is there any money available under this Vote, whether by savings in other directions or in some other manner, for the formation of a wages fund for prisoners, apart altogether from a voluntary fund which was collected from outside sympathisers, and paid over to the authorities for this purpose? I understand that in 1929 the Prison Commissioners took advantage of an offer made by some public-spirited persons interested in prison administration, and accepted £250 raised entirely from voluntary sources for use in an experimental scheme for payment of prisoners. The experiment was tried first in the mat-making shop at Wakefield with 30 prisoners. Any prisoner who misbehaved himself or did not work satisfactory was liable to be sent back.
The system adopted was to fix a basic output and to pay for output in excess of that figure. The normal output in the shop had up to that time been 500 units a week. The basis for payment purposes was fixed at 600 a week, and work completed above that was remunerated at the rate of 1d. per unit. I am given to understand that within a few weeks of the introduction of this scheme there was an output of 836 units and although there were frequent fluctuations, the output practically never fell below 700 and frequently exceeded 800 or even 850. Payment was on a group, or party, basis, the sum earned being divided equally between the workers in the group. The individual earnings were small, averaging only 8d. or 10d. a week per head. The prisoners were allowed to spend these earnings either on cigarettes or on cake and jam for tea on Sundays.
It is an interesting experiment. The reports on the subject by the Prison Com-
missioners and private reports sent to the subscribers to the voluntary fund are very striking. It is stated, for example, that one effect of the increased industry was a marked improvement in the behaviour of the prisoners. There was less insubordination, they were less troublesome, irritable and sullen and much more cheerful, and the Medical Officer reported that their health improved. The group of prisoners earning a common fund refused to tolerate slacking on the part of individuals, and the Governor states that, as a consequence, a team spirit developed and a social conscience was created. I have seen several reports furnished to subscribers and they are the most remarkable documents I have ever come across. One states that the scheme provides training in self-control and self-discipline, and this strikes me as being one of the most valuable assets of the experiment, for these young fellows are almost invariably careless and self-indulgent. The Governor of Wakefield says that he could not speak too highly of the result of the experiment, and he desired to see it extended. At Nottingham the results were even more astonishing. The production rose from an average for the preceding six months of 16 square feet per man to 28. At Wakefield it took seven weeks for this percentage increase to occur, but at Nottingham it was done in four weeks.
In the laundry it was found that six men were able to do the washing for 165 prisoners in four days, or for 185 in five days, whereas the official allowance is only four men for 100 prisoners in six days. On the land, eight men did the necessary work in less time than 20 unpaid prisoners took previously. They dug 50 per cent. more ground per day than was considered a fair average by the outside expert who was called in. There were equally astonishing increases in output in building work on the construction side. The Governor of Nottingham testified to the value of the scheme in securing co-operation and good feeling between the prisoners and the staff, and to the excellent effect that it had on prison behaviour generally. I wish to ask whether, with such admirable results accruing on this small experimental scale, there is any intention of extending the system generally to other prisons and developing the idea on larger and broader lines. It would seem, of course,
that a prisoner is much more likely to recover his self-respect if he feels that he is turning out useful work and receiving recognition for his industry. If he can be induced to put his best into the job and is allowed to develop some skill, and can see the results of his skill, he will be undergoing not merely prison discipline, but actual training and reformation. If the system could be extended to prisons where juveniles between 16 and 21 are confined, the arrangement would be particularly beneficial to that class. The experiment, of course, marks a breakaway from the past, in which prison labour has been entirely forced labour and, consequently, to many men in a sense degrading. The new method consists in restoring self-respect and dignity, and I beg the Home Office very earnestly to consider whether they cannot see their way to extend the idea.
I want the Committee to consider the position of the young unemployed man who commits a crime against property or person, perhaps involving violence, and receives a sentence of several years imprisonment. The Home Secretary in his speech the other day, and again this afternoon, referred to the fact that those cases are increasing at a somewhat alarming rate. How should that young prisoner, committed perhaps for a number of years, be treated after the sentence has been imposed? I beg the Under-Secretary and Members of the Committee to exercise their imagination as to the position of such a young man. and the way in which he has been brought into the condition in which he finds himself in gaol. He has probably been out of work for months, possibly for years. There are hundreds of thousands of young men who have practically done no work since they left school, or, at any rate, only a short period of work. There must be hundreds of thousands of young men between the ages of 16 and 25 in that position. This type of man receives no unemployment benefit, and no transitional payment is awarded to him. He can get no Poor Law relief. He is told, if he applies to the public assistance committee, that he must either fend for himself or live upon his family. He is given no monetary assistance from the State. The outlook for such a man in the big towns and in districts such as my district is utterly and abjectly hopeless. There is no future which he can foresee.
The most pathetic figure in our modern social life is this young, single unemployed man. He receives little or no sympathy and consideration from anyone. His position is more pathetic than that of any other class in the whole population. I have lived in an industrial district consisting almost exclusively of workpeople for 35 years, and I have seen the assistance granted to all types of people. But this young fellow is left absolutely stranded with no helping hand held out to him from any quarter, and certainly not from the State. If he likes to do what, in the circumstances, I call the wrong thing, that is, to many, and be responsible for bringing other lives into the world, he can put himself right immediately and secure out-relief, but if he remains single his position is practically hopeless. He has either to take to the road or to live entirely upon his family. However good his parents may be and whatever the circumstances of his home, after a few months everybody begins to get tired of keeping a great, hulking young fellow. He is a nuisance and in the way at home, and he begins to feel that he is a sponger and a loafer, and, subconsciously to begin with, and then actively, the rest of the family look upon him in that light. There is no opening for him of any kind. He is reduced to a state of profound depression on the one hand, or desperation on the other. In a condition of desperation he very often commits some crime, perhaps a robbery of some sort which very often is associated with an act of violence, and perhaps of very grave violence.
I ask the Under-Secretary and Members of the Committee, what would they do in such circumstances I Speaking for myself, nothing but the Grace of God would keep me in such circumstances from doing some reckless and desperate act, feeling that I was utterly unwanted, that there was no prospect ahead, no assistance from any quarter, and that I was sponging upon my family. It is almost more than you can expect of human nature if a man in those conditions is not reduced to a state of desperation. Here you have a man of that sort, and to-day he is having longer and longer sentences imposed upon him; in fact, the maximum sentences the law permits. He is sent to gaol for two, three, four or five
years, and I ask, how is the Home Secretary going to treat him, because the Home Secretary has tremendous powers as far as the internal administration of our penal institutions is concerned. I beg the Home Office to consider the desirability of varying or even revolutionising completely the prison regime for offenders of that type. I gather that there is some intention of segregating them in particular prisons, and I suggest that instead of the soulless, deadening routine of ordinary prison life, some kind of work colonies or centres should be organised where those young fellows may really have a chance of genuine reformation, and where, as a result of their incarceration, they will not be embittered against society for the rest of their lives. They come out of prison—I have met a number of them, and have talked with them after their discharge—feeling that they have a grievance against the world, and that they have not been treated aright and have never had a chance. They come out, after having performed more or less futile prison tasks, infinitely worse from the point of view of character than when they went into prison. There has been no attempt at real reformation.
I see no chance of those young men being restored to useful citizenship unless an entirely different method is undertaken in handling them after they have been to prison. On behalf of all the societies which are interested in penal reform and which, as the Under-Secretary knows, have done so much with regard to putting forward new ideas with reference to prison administration, I ask that some special thought should be given to the handling and treatment of those young men, particularly after they have been to gaol. In all probability the extension to those young men of the wages system, to which I alluded as being practised so successfully at Wakefield and Nottingham, might be helpful. In any case, the development of work centres or farm colonies associated with the prison, although I know that it would probably cost additional money, would be a wise expenditure of money and an economy in the long run, because many of those young men will be a charge on the community for years to come unless some special steps are taken to get them out of their present deplorable conditions. Judicial authorities up and down the
country are complaining of the increase in vagrancy. A certain number of those young men who are of the more adventurous type and have a certain amount of initiative, instead of committing crime, leave their homes and take to the road, but they find the conditions even more hopeless than in their own home districts. Practically there is nothing before them and starvation, theft or the casual ward. People who have special knowledge of the subject and who have written about casual wards state that those men prefer prison to the casual ward.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of casual wards does not arise under the present Vote.

Dr. SALTER: I was aware that I was hovering near the border-line when I was referring to casual wards, but I think that you, Captain Bourne, will agree that it was more as an illustration than anything else. I ask that those young men should be regarded with understanding and sympathy, and that they should not be dismissed from mind as soon as they have been put into gaol as a lot of hopeless, undeserving ruffians who should be subjected to ordinary prison routine. I trust that it will be possible to modify the regime in their regard from the point of view of reformation rather than of the infliction of mere punishment. If genuine, helpful, reformative treatment is afforded to those people, there will be another considerable social advantage to be derived. In many industrial districts to-day young men whose circumstances are such as I have described are well known to everybody, and after conviction they are regarded by people in the district as very unfortunate.
8.0 p.m.
If the present tendency of inflicting more severe sentences is continued, all that will happen will be that there will be an increase of feeling in their behalf in the localities from which they come. There will be a tendency to excuse them. There is a growing tendency to excuse their crime at the present time, and I regard it as very disastrous and unfortunate. The tendency, however, is growing and showing itself by the willingness to shield the men and enable them to escape justice. I regard this tendency— and I am sure that the Home Secretary
does—as highly undesirable. If the idea is spread abroad, after those men have committed a crime of which the State must take cognisance, that the State is endeavouring to treat them with sympathy in the interests of their ultimate reformation, you will tend, on the whole, to arrest the tendency to which I have referred and to make for a healthier public opinion in regard to this kind of crime. The next subject upon which I desire to touch relates to the appointment of prison chaplains. I do not want to cast any reflection on the work or personnel of the present chaplains, much of which is not merely admirable but devoted. But there are chaplains and chaplains, and I want to make a strong appeal to the Home Office to make a new departure. I will try to say what I have to say with all possible restraint and not to use language that will hurt or offend anyone. The duties of prison chaplains are of a very special character and a very special type of mind is required, if a chaplain is to be successful in his work from the highest point of view. The chaplain is looked upon by different persons in very different ways. Some of them—I am afraid only a few—are regarded by the prisoners as their friend, their father confessor and adviser, but much more often the chaplain is regarded merely as a part of the official machinery of the prison, as a sort of superior warder or as an under-govenor. A man in the position of a prison chaplain has the most extraordinary opportunity of influencing his fellowmen and that opportunity carries with it a great responsibility.
If a chaplain gets into ruts, if he accommodates himself to the ordinary routine, if he regards his appointment as merely the means of a livelihood, he may make a very necessary and useful prison functionary, but he will be nothing more and he will do nothing more. He will serve the prison system, but he will not serve the highest interests of the prisoners. There was a very wise and understanding address given last March by the Rev. F. R. Murray, who was formerly chaplain of Holloway Prison. Quoting the late Miss Edith Sichel, who was for many years writer and literary critic of the "Times," and who had been a prison visitor for a great many years, he said:
In prison work we are dealing with two main factors, body and soul. Members, of course, of every sort of belief, and lack of belief, are united in this, that in the past they have erred in separating the two. Our dealings with the individual soul are all-important. They are the central part of our work in connection with prisoners.
Having regard to the importance of that statement and the need for appointing men who can exercise a real influence on the prisoners, I want to ask the Home Secretary if he will consider a new method of appointing prison chaplains. I understand that about 80 per cent. of the prisoners in this country are described as members of the Church of England. Will the Home Secretary ask the Bishops to appoint a special board to whom clergymen who feel that they have a special call, a definite vocation, for prison work may make application for appointments? If so, it should be stated publicly that only men who feel a very definite call for such work should apply to the Bishops' committee or commission, which would interview them. I do not believe that there would be many applications; I think that they would be very few. The commission would interview the applicants and would recommend to the Home Secretary two or three from whom he might make a selection. He would be much more likely to secure as prison chaplains consecrated men, men who have consecrated their whole life to this particular work as their definite vocation, if he would adopt a method of appointment of that sort. If he did so, I am certain that the prison chaplains as a whole would be regarded in a very different light from the way in which they are regarded by most prisoners and most ex-prisoners to-day.
I have had personal contact with a good many prison chaplains, and I have talked with hundreds, perhaps with thousands, of ex-prisoners of all types and have ascertained their views as to the value of the prison chaplain, the influence of the prison chaplain on them and their fellow-prisoners and the relationship that exists between the average prisoner and the average chaplain and, without saying anything in the least derogatory to the chaplain service as it exists at the present time, I am certain that it is advisable that the Home Secretary should carry out such a new departure as I have suggested, and that a distinctly different
type of men should be appointed in certain oases as prison chaplains. If he could make an experiment in that direction it would be very valuable.
I should also like the right hon. Gentleman to make an experiment by appointing different types of governors. We have been discussing on the preceeding Vote the appointment of military officers in charge of the police. I gather that the usual type of appointment as a. prison governor is that of a military or ex-military officer. That may be all right from the point of view of maintaining prison discipline, but I would suggest that if we got a new type of governor and perhaps a new type of warder to staff the prison, we might secure results which would surpass even our most hopeful expectations, in giving a changed attitude towards life on the part of many prisoners. The Home Office did make an experiment in regard to the governor of Aylesbury convict prison, and I am sure the Home Secretary will agree with me that the experiment proved a very great success. Depraved women are much more difficult persons to handle than depraved men. That has been the experience of everybody. I am not suggesting that a clergyman or any minister of religion should be appointed under such experimental conditions as a prison governor.
I am not certain that if we had an experienced Salvation Army officer we might not completely revolutionise prison life. I have seen Salvation Army officers handling men of the most degraded type, men from whom all self-respect had long since disappeared, and I have seen those men, who had been reduced to the utmost depths of social degradation, like lambs under the control of the Salvation Army officer, with better discipline, infinitely better discipline, than you will get in any prison at the present time. I have seen, the Home Secretary may see, and is is open for the world to see reformed characters in the farm colonies, the slum colonies and the slum centres. I am not suggesting that necessarily a Salvation Army officer should be selected, but I am suggesting that the Home Secretary might try an experiment in the way of a new sort of governor, a new type of chaplain and a new sort of staff in regard to one selected prison or one selected set of prisoners, in the hope that we might get some improvement of a social
character in prison life. I hope that he will not dismiss the suggestion without some thought.
There is another point which affects prisoners. On 14th March, in reply to a question as to the length of time prisoners were locked in their cells, and how many hours the ordinary prisoner not undergoing prison punishment spent in what is practically solitary confinement, the Home Secretary said:
The hour varies in different prisons between about 4.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. In many prisons where associated labour formerly continued till about 5.30 p.m., the time spent out of the cells has recently been reduced by about an hour or three-quarters of an hour. The change was one of the regrettable but unavoidable consequences of the financial crisis. The only way to effect any material saving in prison expenditure is to reduce staff by leaving unfilled vacancies caused in the normal course by retirements. The wages of the staff account for considerably more than half of the total Prison Vote. The change has not affected all prisons, and has not affected the arrangements by which many prisoners are brought out of their cells on certain evenings in the week to attend educational classes."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1932: col. 31. Vol. 263.]
On behalf of the penal reform societies and persons who are interested specially in prison administration, I have to say that they regret very deeply the decision of the Home Secretary to permit this new departure. It is universally felt that it is a retrograde step to increase the solitary confinement of the prisoners because, in the long run, it is detrimental to their health, their moral and their hopes of reform. I hope that the Home Secretary, by other adjustments of the money at his disposal for prison purposes, will so arrange that it will not be necessary to increase the time that the prisoner is locked in his cell.
I should also like to refer to the question of prison dietary. I suppose that the most important medical discovery of this generation has been that of vitamins. It is a discovery of equal importance to the discovery of antiseptics by Lister. We know now how our mental faculties, our physical health and our moral outlook can be modified not merely by internal gland secretions but by these vitamin substances that are taken in our food. If the Home Secretary knows anything about prison dietary I think he will agree with me that the supply of green-
stuff, green vegetables, particularly uncooked green vegetables, in prison is extraordinarily small and deficient. I speak from some experience of this matter, because I happen to have been in prison on more, than one occasion and I know that during the time of my residence, and I am so informed by other people who have been in a similar position, we had no green vegetables, and certainly never, at any time had uncooked green vegetables, like watercress, lettuce or salad. It may be said that these are luxuries to which no prisoner is entitled. I submit that in view of modern knowledge as to the detrimental results of the deprivation of these vita-mines, they should be supplied to every prisoner. I ask the Home Secretary to consult his medical advisers on this matter, in the hope that prison dietary will be augmented or modified in this direction.
I conclude by asking the right hon. Gentleman another question. He and his predecessors have been closing many prisons during recent years. Since 1914, 29 out of a total of 56 prisons, more than half, have been shut down or abolished. We rejoice in that. He and his pre-pecessors have also been making considerable alterations in prison routine administration. Only recently the right hon. Gentleman stated that he was of the opinion that the system of prison industries needed review, and a few weeks ago he told us that there was to be a redistribution of prison population, with the possible closing down of Dartmoor. These and other changes are contemplated. Our prisons are undoubtedly being humanised to some degree, a matter in which we all rejoice. It is very much to the good, but the question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is, has not the time arrived when a comprehensive review of the whole penal system should be undertaken? Mr. Justice du Parcq in his report on the Dartmoor disturbances advocated the setting up of a Royal Commission on prison administration generally, and I would remind the Home Secretary that it is 40 years since a Royal Commission was appointed to consider prisons and the prison system generally. Could not the right hon. Gentleman appoint such a commission in the near future? In any case I hope we shall get a statement from him on the subject.

Captain CAZALET: I desire to say a word on prison administration. Some years ago I had the interesting experience of visiting the well-known Sing Sing prison in New York State, and since then I have visited other prisons in various parts of the world. It is my firm conviction, as it would be that of any unprejudiced person, that the English prison administrative system will stand comparison with that in any other part of the world. We alone seem to have been able to combine the necessary sense of discipline without losing that touch of human sympathy and understanding which is essential if you are to get satisfactory administration. This is due largely to the governors and officials of our prisons. There is no section of the civil service of this country which deserves better of the public. I refuse to regard the recent events at Dartmoor as indicative or illustrative in any way of our prison system as a whole. Governors of prisons,, like colonels of Indian regiments, have supreme and absolute control of their State; they are lords and masters in their own house. It is right that they should be. You must have stern, hard, and it may be in some cases brutal regulations, but, on the other hand, every prisoner has an individual character, and it is necessary to have a governor with human sympathy and understanding. Therefore, it is highly important that you should choose your governors with care and discretion. For the most part it is safe to say that the right kind of individual is chosen as governor of a prison.
No aspect of our prison administration compares better with that of other countries than the careful way in which we separate and segregate various classes of offenders. This is important not only in the interests of the prisoners themselves but in the interests of the State, because a prisoner who is badly handled will return again and again as a charge on the State, whereas if the right action is taken in the beginning he may develop into a useful citizen. Whether he is a recidivist or a first offender, whether he is an old lag or a juvenile, each case, as far as possible, should be considered individually. I was taken by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan), who spends so much of his spare time in
studying juvenile offenders, to the institution at Borstal, and no one who goes there can come away without sincere admiration for the manner in which the institution is conducted. That applies equally to other institutions of a similar nature.
There are one or two other matters I should like to mention. First, the case of the remand prisoners at Brixton. Why is it that visitors are not allowed to see these remand prisoners? I have asked questions on this point, but have never received a satisfactory answer. Surely the individuals who are experiencing the loneliness of prison life are just those to whom visitors should be allowed access. That is. not an unreasonable request. I am not quite sure whether this is a. matter within the discretion of the Governor of Brixton Prison or whether it is governed by some Home Office Order. Secondly, in regard to religious liberty in prisons. I have raised this matter on former occasions, and I am glad to say that in the last three or four years certain concessions have been made. If a prisoner happens to be a Roman Catholic and desires to borrow from the library prison a book which is sanctioned by the Church of England, he is not allowed to read it. He may only borrow those religious books which are sanctioned by the particular clergyman or priest of his own denomination. I believe that a certain latitude has been allowed in this respect during the last three years. If an individual like General Booth offered to give an address at the prison he would be allowed to speak only to those members of the prison who subscribed to the faith of the Salvation Army. America has gone ahead of us somewhat in this respect. I think that a greater degree of latitude for lectures should be allowed. Sectarian jealousy plays too strong a part in the prison administration of this country.
I would like to say a word in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy for the most difficult of all cases in prison administration, the discharged prisoners. Never was anything truer said than that the hardest part of their sentences begins when they leave prison. It is not by any means only employers who do not extend a sympathetic helping hand to ex-prisoners; it is the employés
themselves, who do not desire to be associated with an ex-convict. I was wondering, after some of the remarks made by the hon. Member who has just spoken as to the wages earned in prison, whether those wages might not be allocated to a fund that would help ex-prisoners. I know what excellent work is done by the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society in London and in the country, but always it is the same problem, lack of money. I believe that it might be possible to place these ex-convicts in profitable and useful employment, if only a little more cash were available at the moment when they leave prison.
There is one other small point. A prisoner who has served his sentence and has a remission of, say, three to six months on his sentence, has, during that period, to report regularly to the police of his district. In certain cases it has been found that the mere fact of having to report during that period of remission has cost him the job that he had been able to get. In one instance, which I brought to the notice of the Home Office some time ago, a concession was made, and the man was allowed to report by post to some authority at some distance from the place where he was engaged. That exception might be made the rule— that individuals who have found an occupation, and who have to report every fortnight or every month, should be allowed to report in writing, and only to report in person finally at the end of their sentences. If the Home Secretary could see his way to do something by administrative action—and these questions only entail administrative action— those who hold the views that I am putting forward would be extremely grateful to him. May I, in conclusion, pay a need of admiration and gratitude to the vast body of voluntary workers, prison visitors, the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society and others, because it is largely due to their efforts and labours that the prison administration of this country is not only the admiration, but the envy, of the rest of the world.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I stated earlier in the evening, Sir, when you considered it your duty to call upon me to stop, that we were being asked to vote £944,000 to the service of the prisons, almost £1,000,000, and that we were, therefore,
entitled to criticise the administration of the prisons to which such a large sum of money was to be devoted. I stand here as one utterly dissatisfied with the prison system in our country, and with the results of the prisons. I feel that until the prisons are put on a basis on which they certainly are not now, we shall get no value from the system.
8.30 p.m.
We have, of late years, adopted the policy of combining, in the prisons, punishment with reformation. We put men in prison, and then we try to reform them. We pull them down with one hand, and we try to keep them up with the other. It is perfectly clear, from what experiences we have had, that punishment and reclamation cannot go together. In this House I have protested against the habit of magistrates putting boys on probation and ordering them to be flogged at the same time, combining reformative with punitive methods. That has been found to be a mistake, and I think it hag been abandoned. But in the case of the prison system we do precisely the same thing. We say that a man must go to prison, but that we must not make it too unpleasant for him. If he must go to prison, be deprived of his liberty, we must put him under a kindhearted government. That system has not worked. I am sorry that I cannot agree with those who have spoken of our prison system as the admiration of the world. It is not the admiration of those who have investigated and understood the prison problem.
Lord Brentford, who used to be Sir William Joyson-Hicks, said in December, 1924, in the "Times" newspaper:
If those who went to prison came out no better than they went in, then the whole prison system has failed.
My assertion is that the vast majority of those who go into prison do not come out the better for their stay. I read the other night, in the report of the Prison Commissioners for 1928, a statement, quoted from the Governor of Dartmoor, that prisons were "the greatest manufactory of criminals,'' and, considering the kind of work they do and the men who are turned out, I think that statement would be borne out. Some time ago great hopes 'were formed of what Camp Hill was going to do. Habitual offenders were sent to Camp Hill. Camp Hill has ceased to be a place for habitual
offenders, because it certainly did not cure the habitual offenders. Then Wormwood Scrubs was to be the place where men were sent to serve their first sentences, but Wormwood Scrubs does not prevent men from returning to prison. Maidstone was the place where a gallant attempt was made, in difficult conditions, to provide some sort of education for the inhabitants of the prisons. It was not a success. Lord Brentford said:
If you send a man to prison, give him a long sentence, so that we may have a chance of training and reforming him.
The men at Dartmoor and Parkhurst, have very often, I believe, sentences of at least three years' penal servitude, and some sentences of as much as 15 years' penal servitude, but the men are not benefited. They are not improved, and they are do not come out the better for their having been sent to Dartmoor and Parkhurst. There is no chance of training there, and there is no regular education or educational adviser. The report of the Prison Commission says:
In a prison it is administratively impossible to provide the requisite diversity of training and employment. In a prison there can be practically no progressive or consecutive courses. At a prison there is usually little open space and such opportunities (for open-air work, exercise and physical training) are small. In a prison, opportunities of contamination by older offenders cannot be altogether eliminated." That is the report of the Prison Commissioners for 1927. It gives one an idea of how little real educational work has been done in the prisons.
In 1927, a very admirable book entitled "Criminology and Penology" was brought out by Mr. John Lewis Gillen. In that book the author says that one of the foremost reasons for having a prison system is that it is easy to operate.
We continue the prisons because we do not want to take the trouble of finding a better way. … It accords with the inherent laziness of humanity … but we are not proud of it.
Then he goes on to foreshadow the lines on which prisons might be improved:
Perhaps when we bring to this problem the industry, the patient search for causative factors, the ingenuity of adapting means to ends that characterises the history of medicine, we shall find a way to end this disgraceful institution, which, more than any other, illustrates man's inhumanity to man, but also his indifference and ignorance.
The aim of those in the House of Commons who desire reform of prisons, as it is the aim of all prison reformers, is to convert our prisons into "moral hospitals," to use the term employed by Lord Lytton, a great authority on this subject, whose writings and speeches in regard to it I always read with great pleasure. We want to adopt, with regard to all prisoners, the tactics which penal reformers are advocating with regard to children. We now see that children who get into trouble ought to be carefully examined; that their characters ought to be tested by psychologists, that their past life ought to be investigated and all the circumstances of their environment ascertained and that then, and only then, should the magistrates deal with them. Precisely the same thing is necessary with adult prisoners. At present we treat people who are abnormal as if they were normal. We punish abnormal people for their abnormality. We forget that many of the inmates of prisons are mental cases, that they are suffering from a mental disability which requires sympathetic treatment and consideration.
Is it right, for instance, to send to prison a neurasthenic whose case calls for careful treatment and a cheerful and inspiring environment We fling into prison cells and place under lock and key men who ought to be allowed to lead open-air lives, with plenty of exercise and the diverse interests of outdoor work. We lock men up in huge and hideous prisons which are, in themselves, creators of the criminal spirit. Many hon. Members no doubt know some of the great prisons of this country like Holloway Gaol or the ghastly prison at Liverpool or the hideous and repulsive prison at Glasgow which is in the centre of the city, contaminating the whole city, situated side by side with the cathedral— the house of God, beside the house of the devil. Our prisons, in themselves, are incitements to crime. I ask any hon. Member here to imagine what his own feelings would be and how he would be influenced, if he found himself inside Holloway Prison or Liverpool Prison with all the repulsive smells of adjoining factories and the horrible environment of that place.
The Governors of our prisons ought to be medical and psychological experts able to differentiate between different types of prisoners. The delinquent ought
to be placed under a medical expert and only when all the circumstances of his case had been ascertained, should a decision be come to as to the fate to be allotted to him. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) asked for an inquiry into and a report upon the whole of the penal system. I would say that there ought to be an inquiry into a report upon our prison system. It is profoundly unsatisfactory. It is not stopping crime, but, on the other hand, it is, in my belief, increasing crime. No average man who goes into prison comes out a better man. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in the future to work, as far as he can, on the lines which I have with great respect suggested to him. Our prisons as they exist do not cure crime and it is only on lines such as those I have indicated that they can be made beneficial, in the way of improving character of those who are sent to them, and in the long run reducing the amount of crime.

Mr. WILLIAM HUTCHISON: I consider that a little more attention ought to be given to the conditions of the prison officers. These officers receive very small remuneration and, of necessity, they must be people of a certain calibre, as is indicated in the report on the recent disturbances at Dartmoor, which contains the following passage
So much depends upon discipline being maintained that it is plainly essential that the officers should be men of the 'highest character and reliability.
If you are to have men of the highest character and reliability, men who can be trusted, men of whom there need be no suspicion at all as regards communication between the prisoners and the outer world, surely it is necessary to ensure that those men get a wage comparable with other forms of livelihood. This evening the police have been praised, and rightly praised, as an admirable body of men. They have a federation which supports their interests, but the prison officers have no body 'at all to support their interests. When a constable enters the police service, as soon as he receives payment, he receives 55s. a week, which goes on to 60s. a week, but an officer in the prison service only receives 29s. a week, graded up to 43s. after five years. A first-class officer receives 41s., graded up to 45s. In Broadmoor the rates are
higher. There, principal attendants get 50s. 6d., going up to 58s. 6d., and ordinary officers 31s. 6d., going up to 37s. 6d. It is obvious that these are not salaries which were fixed after the cuts. I looked up the records to see what were the salaries this time last year, and I find that the salaries of prison officers were exactly the same as they are to-day. I consider that when the time comes for any alleviation of the present state of affairs the prison officers ought to be regarded very sympathetically, because for years they have been working under very difficult conditions.
The hon. Member for West Bermondsey during a rather long speech mentioned that there was not enough greenstuff in the diet of prisoners. Recently I had the good fortune, or the bad fortune, whichever it may be, to visit Maidstone Gaol and there I noticed the food going in for the prisoners' lunch. I asked the medical attendant some questions about the diet, and he informed me that it was a scientific diet. He added that it had been discovered that prisoners for a short time after entering prison lost weight. Then they came to a point at which their weight began to go up, and they became much more healthy in the majority of cases than they had ever been before they came into prison. I had also the opportunity of studying two photographs which were an indication that in certain cases, at any rate, our prison system does some good. One was the photograph of a man when he entered prison and the other was a photograph of the same man on leaving the prison. The first photograph showed a debauched face, loose at the mouth, the skin round the eyes flabby, and the whole face that of a man of very bad type. The second photograph taken of the man when he was leaving prison after several years, showed a firm mouth instead of the loose mouth; instead of a flabbiness of the skin round the eyes it showed a firm look about the eyes, and there was a determination in the face. I understand that that man has been able to "make good" and is living a very happy and contented life which he probably would never have done, had it not been for the very necessary discipline which he underwent during his imprisonment.
We have heard that there is no education for the prisoners. Again in Maid-stone Gaol I made it one of my objects
to find out what form of education there was for the prisoners, and I discovered that many prisoners, while they were in gaol, were able to pass examinations, not only simple examinations, but examinations in languages. There was one man in Maidstone Gaol who had passed in three languages, and passed the necessary grades that one gets in ordinary educational system. Therefore, in my opinion, the present system, although it may not be ideal, is certainly a system which is being run on the right lines, but I think it is essential that if you are to continue to run this system on right lines and to provide people to run it, you must pay those people properly. I again urge the Home Secretary, when the time comes, to consider this question of improving the pay of prison officers.

Mr. LANSBURY: The discussion which has been initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) is one which I have hoped for a very long time would take place. Whenever we discuss either police or prisons, whether under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, of his predecessor, or of Lord Brentford, I always have the feeling that there is a certain air of boredom and just a little resentment at criticism, not so much on the part of the Home Secretary of the day as on the part of the Committee. It is a sort of attitude of mind that the police are there to deal with evildoers, that the prison is there to treat them, and that, after all, they would not be there but for their own fault and their own misdeeds. That, of course, is perfectly true, but the short speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to-day, and especially that part of it which dealt with crime and the reasons for crime, showed, in my judgment, a real reason why the persons who get into prison should be dealt with in a different fashion from that in which they are being dealt with to-day. Our prisons at present, rather more than at any other time in my lifetime, have within them a number of men who under normal conditions would not be there. I mean the great financiers and others, and I do not think that any honest thinking person, knowing all the circumstances, would think that the sort of treatment they are having to undergo,
the degradation, the demoralisation, and the indignities that are put upon them, is a punishment which really fits the crime. If that is true of those people because of the circumstances that have landed them there, how much more is it true of the larger number of people who, through one cause and another, over which they have no control, find themselves in these places?
I know that one hon. Member spoke about young criminals for whom there is no excuse, who are criminally minded, but, honestly, I have never been able to accept that sort of attitude of mind. I believe that environment and the conditions under which people are brought up are what bring them into crime, and I think it is the conditions that have put the great financiers into prison today. Although I am a very strong sort of class person—that is to say, I pin my faith to the working classes very largely, if not entirely—yet when I think of those men, those financiers and other3, and of what they are enduring, and then remember the circumstances that have landed them where they are, I often think that in the City of London there must be many a man who is saying, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Consequently, when I think of the rest of the people in prison, I cannot think that civilised people should treat any human beings in that way.
My experience in prison was very easy. I do not stand here as a martyr or as a person who has had something inflicted on him in a very terrible manner. I have always denied that sort of attitude towards me or towards the men who were like me, but the first time that I went to Holloway Prison, when men were there, was to see a young lad who had committed an offence in connection with some business or other, and who was going afterwards to serve a term of penal servitude. When I saw that young man at Holloway I saw him in the cage. He was dressed in that hideous prison garb, and I am certain, from the way he looked at me, that the one thing that had struck him almost dumb was the hideousness of his surroundings and being treated, as it were, like a wild animal. He was quite a refined young man. He had fallen, had done something that he certainly ought not to have done, but when he got to prison, there he was branded in that
hideous uniform, and when a friend came to see him he was just caged.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever been in one of those cages. I went into one, was placed in one, with my wife on one side and me on the other. She went away feeling that it was the greatest outrage she had ever seen. I might have been a criminal, but it happens that I was not. She had the same feeling about me that I had about my young friend, and I cannot think there is any reason why that should last, why the system should continue to put a man in that sort of cage when his friends go to see him, as though they could pick him up and carry him out or as if some terrible thing might happen. It was the degradation that hurt my wife, and it was the degradation that hurt me and that hurt the young man in the cage, and that was right at the beginning of prison life. I do not know whether anyone but a prisoner who enters the gates of the prison for the first time as a prisoner can understand it.
I went into Pentonville first. It is a horrible place, horrible to go into and horrible to live in. I would not put my very worst enemy in Pentonville in any circumstances. It may have been in some way improved in its sanitary and other arrangements since, but if I had not been who I was, I am certain that I should have become severely ill in that prison, not because of what anybody did to me, but because of the surroundings. I understand that my hon. Friend has dealt with the question of the church services. I am a member of the Church of England, although perhaps a very unworthy member. The services in prison are Church of England, but they are simply blasphemy as I witnessed them, because of the manner in which the services go and the fact that at each corner there is a warder who will not allow you to turn your head or to look anywhere but straight ahead. Then I went to Brixton with. 30 others. They were borough councillors, and we may have been fools, but we were not criminals. The first Sunday we were ordered and talked to as if we were bits of wood. A warder came to me when I had spoken to one of my friends expressing my detestation of the whole thing, and said: "Don't you know where you are?" I said: "Yes, I am in hell if you want to know what I think," and I meant it.
That was the impression on one who was accustomed to live, and had seen prison, under three sets of conditions. I made up my mind that I would do all I could whenever I had the chance to ventilate my views about the services in the prisons. I am not saying this for the first time. I wrote about it at the time and published it, and I have made many speeches since on the same subject.
9.0 p.m.
With regard to occupations in prison there may have been improvements, but what incentive is there for a man to do anything and for a man to do his best? I have visited prisons not only here, but in America, Canada, Australia and Russia. We went through four prisons in Russia in 1926. They are dirtier than our prisons, which are scrupulously clean except in the case of the lavatories that I have mentioned, but you are bound to keep them clean. They are like workhouses, where you must not have a speck of dirt anywhere. In Russia that is not so. There is a great deal of dirt in Russian prisons. There is, however, a sort of co-operative store where prisoners may buy additions to their food with the money that they earn. We saw two prisons in which every sort of industry was carried on, and the men were paid or credited with the same wages as if they had been working outside. From their wages was deducted the cost of their maintenance, and, of the remainder, part was put to their credit to await their release, and part was given to them to use in supplementing their food. I may be told that there are more criminals in Russia than there are here, but I am certain that the psychological effect of the one treatment as against the other is altogether against our system and in favour of the Russian system. In our prisons, right from the first moment to the last, you are made to feel that you are an inferior person. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, will understand what I mean. There is such a thing as personality even in the humblest and least educated, and anything that is done to hurt that hurts the most sacred thing about a human being. This business of the uniform, this business of expecting them to work for very nearly nothing, this business of being ruled and controlled every second of their life in prison crushes that most sacred of all
things, personality. Nothing that I have seen in a prison can in any way make up for that except a complete revolution in the attitude of mind of people towards the prisoner and the person who has committed a crime.
In spite of what an hon. Member who spoke earlier said, we have on our hands now a large number of new and young criminals. What is the State going to do with them? You will not improve very many of them by a dose of Borstal or any other prison system. Again the question arises, why are they there, and, having them there, what can we do to preserve or develop or to draw out of them whatever is good? No prison situated in the heart of a great city is the right place to keep such persons. I believe that a great deal could be done with lots of these young people if, instead of putting them under a probation officer only, they could be put in charge of friends in their own districts. I was called upon one night by a distressed father of a young boy who had done what a lot of boys have done lately, stolen a motor car, gone off for a drive, and then left it. The boy was up at the Sessions, because he had done it twice, and his father wanted someone to go to speak for him. I went. The Chairman of the London Sessions then was Sir Robert Wallace, a man who showed the greatest judgment in dealing with this class of case. I did not quite know what to say to him. I knew the boy, and I knew his parents; they were good Roman Catholics and attended their church, as did the boy. All of a sudden I thought, "Perhaps if I say I will see this boy each week he will not have to go through quite the same sort of paraphernalia as a boy on probation." I undertook to see him each week, and the boy did not go to prison, although he had been on the point of being sent to prison. Every Saturday he came to me, and I am sure that he is now doing very well indeed.
I ask the Home Secretary whether he cannot get that plan extended, especially in these days. I got the idea when, as a member of the Poor Law Commission, I visited Germany. At that time the whole of the Poor Law administration was carried on in that sort of way. I would like to see the plan I have sug-
gested adopted, thus avoiding the intervention of a probation officer, because when a boy or a girl has to be visited at home by a probation officer everybody in the street knows it. If we really want to save these young people those living in the neighbourhood ought to be allowed to forget as soon as possible that they have ever been arrested. Another thing is that these young people ought not to be in prisons in cities, because there is precious little useful occupation to which they can be put in a town prison. We ought to get them out into the country.
When I was at the Office of Works I was taken over Osborne, and at the same time I was shown over a huge suite of buildings alongside Osborne which were formerly a naval college for cadets. There it stands, a relic of past administration —not of Socialist administration, but administration by our present-day rulers. That building, which must have cost tens and tens of thousands of pounds, is going to rack and ruin. One of these days, I suppose, it will be pulled down. For the life of me I cannot see why it should not be used, and why the young people sent there should not be treated quite differently from ordinary prisoners, being allowed to wear ordinary clothes, and set to work at every sort of occupation, such as gardening and farming. There was a talk of this being done while I was at the Office of Works, but I believe the proposal has been "axed" in the economy campaign. It is very bad economy not to use that place and it is bad economy to herd these youngsters in ordinary prisons. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will see if something cannot be done along those lines, even at the risk of being told that it is impossible on account of the present financial stringency, because it would be a real economy to prevent the demoralisation of these young people.
I want to join issue with the hon. Member who spoke about diet. I was fortunate when I went to Pentonville, because I was on "hunger strike," and, therefore, did not trouble about the food; but I saw the food, and, unless there has been a tremendous change, the way in which it is cooked is pretty rotten. When I was in Brixton many years afterwards my colleagues and I were quite
ready to try out the food. I am telling the right hon. Gentleman this, because he can get the records at Brixton—unless the records are destroyed. You could have stood a spoon in the first lot of tea that was served to me in Brixton. I asked to see the medical officer. He said, "Nothing wrong with that." I said, "Perhaps you will drink a little." "Oh," he said, "it is not for me to drink." "No," I said, "it would poison you, and so it would me." I want the right hon. Gentleman to note these things. I know that he has a very efficient mind, and that probably he will not think this as important as I do, but I saw a lot of food served up at Brixton, and some of it was served up quite badly. From the window of my cell I could see, all along the road, piles of bread which had been chucked away. It was not eaten, simply because it was too hard when the prisoners got it. We sent our bread back, but because there were 30 of us we were able to get different rations altogether. In the end the 30 of us got very good rations, to the great disgust of all the other prisoners in the place. The point I wish to make is that often it is a case of good food spoiled. I would like to know whether there has been any investigation into that.
Then there is the question of complaints. I know that prisoners can complain when the justices come round. I have seen the justices come round. They stopped and talked to me, because I knew them—or they knew me; but the others had precious little chance of making complaints to them. The final word I have to say is on the general question of the attitude of the officials towards the prisoners. It is true that the officials are very badly paid, but that is not the point, that is not the trouble. I think any man or woman who gives service in a mental asylum or in a prison is deserving of our very great respect. I am not saying a single word against the officials as individuals, but they are asked to administer a system which is founded on a wrong principle altogether. The principle is to punish the prisoners by degrading them, by making them feel ashamed of what they have done, by treating them with every kind of degradation. I saw young people in prison—I wrote about this matter at the time—who had no business to be mixed up with old and middle-aged
men. I saw every day the sort of penal attitude adopted towards them. Something has been said about education. May I say that, in my opinion, the books in a prison library are in the main books that you can read, but they are not really a first class choice for men who are down and out, and some of whom may have intellectual attainments? I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether he will not consider the suggestion that prisoners' friends should be allowed to send them books?
That leads me to the question of the political prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman denies that there is any such thing as a political prisoner under present conditions. The last political prisoners I remember were "Dr. Jim" and his friends. Does the Home Secretary think if Lord Carson and his friends had carried out their threat of rebellion to the extreme and had been captured, that public opinion, even the opinion of people like myself, would have tolerated Lord Carson, Lord Londonderry and others being treated as ordinary criminals? The right hon. Gentleman knows that we should have found some quarters for them, and we should have treated them as human beings. Why should the Communists not be treated like human beings? I have no reason to be grateful to the Communist party. Many of them are my friends; they are also my most violent political enemies, but that is not the point. Justice is justice whether you are dealing with your enemies or your friends. These men have only made speeches or written exciting articles, and I have always claimed for such men political freedom, and they ought not to be put in prison garb. The Government have a right, if they think that these men have broken the law by their speeches to imprison them and they have the power, but the Government have also the duty to see that they are treated as Members of this House would like to be treated under similar conditions.
I have mentioned the case of Dr. Jim, and there are probably other similar cases if I could only remember them. I make an appeal to the Home Secretary in favour of the men whom I mentioned at the beginning, and I appeal also for the financiers who have been sent to prison. Much as I think those men have done
grievous and terrible injury both to themselves and the nation, I put in a plea on their behalf that at least their friends should be allowed to send them books to relieve their deadly monotony. I dare say that the Home Secretary, at some time or other, has been ill, and be knows the monotony of being kept in a room. Only those who have experienced it know what it means to see the door of their room shut early in the evening and not opened until the next morning, and they feel that they are shut right off from the world. For men who have committed no real crime this is a terrible punishment indeed, and I ask the Home Secretary whether he will give a little more consideration to this matter. It is not a question of altering the law, but the regulations, and it is something which I am sure would bring about a good deal of peace, and would restore and preserve the personality of the prisoners. I know that many Members of this House will say that men or women are in prison because they deserve to be there. I always say to myself that punishment is something which I have never felt, and that, as an individual, I have no right to inflict it on someone else. The Bible says:
Vengeance is mine; I will repay.
I believe that. I do not think any of us escape our evil deeds any more than we escape our good ones. I do not think men ever wish to engage in punishment or vengeance, but, society being as it is, and all of us being as we are, and these prisoners and the prison administration being under our control, all I am pleading for is that the Home Office should see to it that these places are made so that men will have time to think of their own lives, where they will be treated as human beings, and where personality, which I have described as a most sacred thing in life, is not destroyed. We hurt one another in a personal fashion in this House by contempt. We hurt one another by words, but the very worst thing to a person in prison is not what is said to him, but the whole surroundings of the hideous place, the way he is dressed, the way his hair is cut, and the way he is treated as something different from everybody else. I want the prisoner treated as a human being; by that I do not mean that he should be pampered with his food and clothes, but
I want him to be treated as I would like to be treated if I were unfortunate enough to be in his position.

Sir H. SAMUEL: We have had an extremely interesting Debate. Some of the speeches have been impressive and even moving, and not the least so the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). Of course any prison administration must have very unsatisfactory and forbidding features. The best thing that has happened to our British prisons is that half of them have been closed since the War, and that is by far the best thing that has happened. I think it is our duty to try to move along the lines which have been suggested by several hon. Members who have spoken this evening. The incidents of a few months ago at Dartmoor have brought our prison administration very much into the public eye, and two criticisms of opposite character have been made. There are some who say that our prison system is so hard and repressive, and that the men are subjected to such bad conditions with regard to diet and other matters, that inevitably they will be driven to revolt. There are others who say, on the contrary, that discipline is now so weak and that the prisoners are so much pampered under the influence of a false sentimentalism that now prevails, that it is to be expected that they would get out of hand, and that proper control cannot be maintained.
I do not myself believe either of those criticisms is valid. If there were anything markedly wrong with the prison system I am sure we should have been made aware of it long ago, not only through the Prison Commissioners themselves, who are men of great capacity, experience and good judgment, and through their inspectors, but also through the visiting justices who are continually visiting prisons and who have the statutory duty of examining into the conditions, and through the many voluntary visitors who most kindly render a great national service by visiting the prisons and taking an individual interest in the prisoners. No, I think our prison system is not open to either of those grave criticisms. But at the same time I am far from suggesting that it is perfect. The administrators of to-day do recognise what has been so strongly urged by
the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) and others this evening, that it is the duty of the prison system to send an offender back to society certainly not worse than when he entered prison and if possible a better man, and above all to avoid sending him back a hardened and determined enemy of society.
The modern system aims at minimising the conditions which are repressive, and tries to adopt a constructive policy to build up capacities and character. The danger is of course that if this is carried too far the prisons may be regarded as almost a pleasant resort and not as a deterrent by those who are of criminal character. Its reformative purposes have to be fulfilled, while at the same time the prison still remains a place which people will use their utmost efforts to avoid by not committing the offences that would bring them there. The principal measures adopted by the Prison Commissioners in the last few years are,, first of all, to provide more serious methods of manual and technical work and training in craftsmanship for occupations in ordinary trades, and to secure that the working day should be nearly a full day, so that the man who goes into a prison shall have almost as many hours of useful and steady occupation in gaol as he would have if he had remained in ordinary life. Further, the time devoted to exercise, instead of being spent in the old maddening walking round and round and round in a confined space interminably for the allotted time, has been replaced by physical exercises under trained instructors, which are both more advantageous physically and less monotonous mentally. The moral and intellectual influences have also been stimulated in many ways.
9.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), spoke about prison chaplains and urged that men with a special aptitude for that vocation should be induced to devote their whole lives to it. I think he is in error there. On the contrary, the best prison chaplains are probably those who spend a comparatively short time at the prison away from contact with the outside world. The system used to prevail that the prison chaplain was a full-time official in the established service of the Crown and remained in the prison
from the time he entered it early in life until he reached the pensionable age and retired on pension like civil servants, but some few years ago that system was altered because it was thought that a different plan would really be preferable. In the last few years chaplains have been selected by a small selection board consisting of one of the Prison Commissioners, a senior chaplain from the prison service and a clergyman of standing from outside the service. This Board does interview applicants, very much as the hon. Member for West Bermondsey suggested should be done, and from the large number of applicants it chooses those who seem to have an aptitude for this particular walk of life.

Mr. LANSBURY: Are those chaplains appointed to live in the prison or are they visiting chaplains such as the rector of the Parish or one of his curates?

Sir H. SAMUEL: There are both classes. In some cases they are permanently there, as in the larger prisons, and in other cases they visit the prison from outside. That is the present arrangement, and the chaplains who have entered for a period of five years will probably have been men who exercise an even greater influence, admirable as the old type of chaplain was, in moulding the individual characters of the prisoners under their care. In addition to that there are now personal visits to the prisoners by numbers of voluntary workers who come in from outside, and are men and women of suitable character and of sound robust common sense. Furthermore, there are evening classes now in the prisons, and they occupy a very large part in the life of the prisoner. Instruction is given in a great variety of useful subjects, very much like the evening classes in outside life. There are lectures frequently given on suitable subjects and occasionally concerts, and in various ways humanising influences are at work in the prisons. All these things help to relieve what used to be the the monotony of prison life and, in regard to those of its members who have done it injury, Society seeks now, not merely to raise its hand to strike, but also to help, and I think the result is that in an increasing degree prisons do exercise reformative influences.
During the last six months various changes have been set on foot, especially
with regard to convicts. The convicts are, as hon. Members know, those who are sentenced to a term of penal servitude for three years or longer for grave offences. Formerly they were all sent to Dartmoor, Parkhurst and Maidstone. In Maidstone were those belonging to what is known as the star class, who had not been previously convicted or were not habitually criminal or corrupt in character. At Dartmoor were the recidivists who had committed several offences and were guilty of grave and persistent crimes. Parkhurst was for the intermediate class between the two—not good enough to be classed among the star class and not bad enough for Dartmoor. The system has now been changed, and particularly with a view to exercising a powerful influence on the young men who are the most hopeful among the convicted classes.
The prison at Chelmsford has been reopened for convicts under the age of 30, who are now sent there instead of to Dartmoor or Parkhurst, and a new and special system of training has been adopted. We hope that this special centre adapted for the younger convicts will produce good results, and that it may have an effective influence in redeeming at all events a fair proportion of them from the life in which they were engaged. We were anxious, and still are anxious, to diminish Dartmoor to an establishment of very small proportions. It is, as I have told the House on previous occasions, a costly establishment to maintain, and the place is uncongenial to the staff and their families. The prison officers and their families regret it when they are required to serve at Dartmoor, as the place is so isolated, there is so little to be done, and there are so few openings for their children when they grow to an age at which they require and seek employment.
Penal servitude and imprisonment under modern conditions are very little different from one another. In a previous generation there was a great distinction, but now they are almost the same, except, of course, for the length of the sentence. I approved a change some time ago under which convicts of three years' sentence might be sent to local prisons instead of being confined in these great
convict prisons. That change was put into effect at the beginning of this year, and we hope it will enable a large reduction to be made in the establishments at Dartmoor and Parkhurst. I would mention that this decision was arrived at before the disturbances in Dartmoor took place, and the events there have been in no sense the cause of the decision to reduce Dartmoor to small proportions, to use the local prisons for members of the convict class, and to carry out the special scheme of training for the younger convicts below the age of 30. For the rest, I am awaiting the report of a committee appointed by my predecessor on persistent offenders—a very able committee, which has conducted an inquiry of a very thorough character over a considerable time. The inquiry is now completed, and the report is about to be presented. It has not yet reached me, but, as soon as it is presented and has been considered, we shall examine what further steps can properly be taken to deal with the grave problem of the persistent offender.
After these general observations, let me come to some of the specific points raised by hon. Members in the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), speaking of the Communists, said that, having been sentenced for making speeches, they ought to be treated as political offenders. I am not, however, aware that any have been sentenced for making speeches. Some have been sentenced for taking part in actual breaches of the peace, and causing physical disturbances; some have been sentenced for writing articles inciting the armed forces of the Crown to mutiny; but no one has been sentenced either for making speeches or for writing articles advocating Communism.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should like this matter to be made quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the administration which suffered Lord Carson and others, not only to write, but to raise an armed body of volunteers in Ulster. I will not argue whether they ought to have been dealt with or not, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will stand at that Box and say that, if Mr. Asquith's Government had prosecuted those men, not for what they wrote, but for what they did, he
would have agreed, and whether he thinks the country would have agreed, to their being treated, if they had been sentenced to imprisonment, as ordinary criminals?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman's question is both hypothetical and retrospective, and I do not know that it is a parallel to the particular case of those who have been endeavouring to incite to mutiny—

Mr. LANSBURY: At the Curragh.

Sir H. SAMUEL: —with regard to conditions of service or for other reasons, in the Navy. I do not know that it would be very profitable to introduce that particular analogy, but the law does provide that a person who is sentenced for sedition may be treated as a first-class misdemeanant, and if those persons had been sentenced for sedition they would have come within that provision of the law. But persons who are engaged in inciting to mutiny, of which these persons had been convicted, do not come within that provision of the law, and, therefore, cannot be dealt with in that way. But those who preach the doctrines of Communism as a political creed not merely are not treated as second or third-class misdemeanants, but are not treated as misdemeanants at all, and are not even prosecuted. They can hold their meetings and speak in Hyde Park, as they were speaking yesterday, they can publish their newspapers, as they publish the "Daily Worker" every day, without even proceedings being taken against them.
With regard to the other points which the right hon. Gentleman raised, the difficulty about providing books from outside is that always in prisons there is a danger of conspiracies to escape, and books can easily be made a vehicle for the transmission of messages of one kind or another. The libraries in the prisons are, however, very numerous. I was surprised, when I went to Dartmoor recently, at the large library which they had, and at the large number of books which many of the prisoners had in their cells. Some of them had six or eight books of different kinds, which they were reading from time to time. I am informed that the cages used, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, have now been abolished, and that the old-
fashioned prison uniform with the broad arrow has also been abolished. [Interruption.] It is not lovely, I agree, and is still less beautiful after it has been washed several times, but we have to consider the interests of economy—[Interruption.] The House is always in favour of general economies, but never of a particular one. Really, however, in these days, when so many people have to go most inadequately paid, I do not think we can afford to spend more upon prisoners' uniforms.
With regard to the training of the prisoners, and present conditions in general, one or two facts should be borne in mind which I think are not generally realised. One is that, of all the people who enter the prisons in any year, less than half have been sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine, that is to say, have committed more or less serious crimes. In 1930, 53,000 men were sent to prison. Of these, 6,300 were sent there merely on remand, and were not afterwards sentenced to imprisonment, but were either acquitted or, more often, put on probation. Then there were 13,000 who went to prison under civil process, because of failure to comply with wife maintenance or affiliation orders, or county court orders, or orders for the payment of rates. That is a very large number. Then there were 9,700 who had been sentenced to a fine or imprisonment in default, and, being in default, had to go to prison. That is a total of 29,000 out of the 53,000, and only 24,000, or considerably less than half, were sentenced to prison really as criminals who deserved imprisonment. Another point to be borne in mind is that more than half go to prison for a period of not more than one month. Fifty-seven per cent. are there for a period of not more than one month, and 91 per cent. for a period of less than six months. Therefore, when it is a question of training, and reformative influences, and the other measures that are desirable in the case of prisoners, it has to be borne in mind that it is very difficult to do anything effective in the case of the 57 per cent. who are there only for a month or less, or even the 91 per cent. who are there for less than six months.
The Prison Commissioners are making a very great effort to create special establishments for particular classes and
classes of a more hopeful type, and at Wakefield, as well as at Chelmsford, we have a new scheme of training. At Wake-field there is a considerable number of prisoners who are being employed under the new system of work with payment by results which the hon. Member for West Bemnondsey emphasised so strongly. The only difficulty with regard to payment by results is that it is hard to find any form of work which is of the ordinary industrial type, the produce of which can be consumed within the prison or in Government establishments, for there is a strong objection to prison-made articles being sold on the ordinary market in competition with normal labour. That being so, the Prison Commissioners are confined to a comparatively small range of articles. Another difficulty is this: If a gratuity is given to every person irrespective of the work that he does unless he is demonstrably idle, there is no very great inducement to work hard, and it is always invidious to say to a man, "You are idle and you shall have no pay." It is a thing that gets the warders into bad odour with the prisoners, and creates difficulties. It is difficult to apply a stimulus of that kind. On the other hand, if they are paid by results, each man's work has to be measured up and, if there is a great variety, the amount of clerical and supervisory work is enormous in proportion to the results gained. However, experiments are being made at Wakefield to overcome these difficulties with a very real desire that they should be overcome, for undoubtedly it is desirable that prisoners should be employed on useful work and that they should be paid, not the full trade union wage, but some wage in proportion to the excellence of their work, and the more that can be achieved the greater the improvement in our prison system.

Dr. SALTER: Is the wages fund from which these prisoners are at present being paid derived from Exchequer grants and the Prisons Vote, or is it entirely from voluntary sources?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I believe it is from the Exchequer, but it does not amount to very much, and of course the work done is of value to the State.
The hon. Member for West Bermondsey spoke of the necessity for observation homes, particularly for children and in London, and for special attention being given to the individual characteristics of the children and other delinquents so that medical or other measures may be adopted suitable to individual cases. That is, undoubtedly, of very great importance, and the hon. Member is entirely right in the view that he has expressed. Not long ago in Vienna I saw a most admirable observation home where children are kept under observation for some time and are then drafted to various institutions suited to their cases. It was a palatial building and had, in fact, been previously the palace of one of the Austrian Arch-Dukes. It is now being put to an even more useful purpose. With regard to London, I agree that the present remand home is not satisfactory—no one claims that it is—but this is a matter requiring legislation and it would, therefore, be out of order on this occasion. But it has been discussed in Committee on the Children Bill upstairs. It is not merely a matter for the Home Office. It concerns the County Council and, if the hon. Member would persuade the County Council to take a forward view on the matter, no one would be more pleased than the Home Office and no one would be more ready to assist their efforts.
Another point raised by the hon. Member was with reference to the appointment of prison governors. They are appointed in this way. There, again, there is a selection board, consisting of representatives of the Civil Service and the Prison Commissioners, and one member is a woman. After interviewing candidates from outside and from within the prison service, the board makes a recommendation to the Home Secretary. I am informed that considerably less than half have been regular officers in one or other of the defence Services, and, of the remainder, a large number have risen from the ranks of the service, some have been promoted from the rank of housemaster in Borstal institutions, and others have come from diverse civil occupations.
The question was also raised as to the number of hours the prisoners now have outside their cells. It is true that that period has been shortened, actually from three-quarters of an hour to an hour, and
the period now is about the same as it was in 1919. I agree that that is a retrograde measure and it is unfortunate that we should have been compelled to adopt it, again under the influence of the stress for economy. We are told we must screw down the Civil Service Estimates, reduce the national expenditure in all the Departments and cut down the demand we make on the taxpayer. The only direction in which it is possible to cut down expenditure in the prison service is to reduce the numbers of the staff of prison officers, and that has been done, not by dismissals but by not filling up vacancies. That can only be done by requiring that the prisoners shall not be out of their cells for quite such a long time in the day, needing very considerable supervision, but they are still for eight hours in the day out of their cells. There is nothing in the nature of solitary confinement all through the day. Eight hours is a good long spell and in special establishments, like the Borstal Institutions, Wormwood Scrubs, Maidstone, and Wakefield, the Prison Commissioners have abstained from enforcing this longer period in the cells and the hours have been left unaltered.
With regard to the dietary, that has been framed after very careful medical investigation and, as a rule, the prisoners put on weight considerably after they enter the gaols nowadays, but I will draw the attention of our expert advisers to the point raised by the hon. Member, himself a medical man, with regard to the inclusion of fresh vegetables. I will give an undertaking that the other points that have been raised, including those raised by the hon. Members for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) and Romford (Mr. Hutchison) shall be considered. The figure that has been quoted of the wage of prison officers was only, I believe, the basic wage, to which has to be added the War bonus, which brings the starting salary of 29s. up to 43s. 6d. and, in addition, the officer has a house or allowance, a uniform and medical attention. All those things have to be taken into account and not merely the crude basic figure of pay. I agree thoroughly that the duty of a prison officer is an unpleasant although a very necessary one, and this Committee should express its gratitude to all in the prison service who undertake this indispensable task on behalf of society which is fulfilled on the
whole, I believe, with sympathy for the prisoners and that necessary admixture of firmness and kindness.
I am grateful to the Committee for the very many suggestions which have been made this evening, and to all of them, I can assure the Committee once more, I shall give close attention. For my own part, I shall indeed feel it a great honour and a privilege if during my tenure of the office of Home Secretary, which may be long or may be short, some substantial reforms can be effected in our prison system.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am sure that if it has given the right hon. Gentleman pleasure to listen to the suggestions which have been made to him this evening, it has given us equal pleasure to listen to the very sympathetic answer which he has given to the many inquiries which have been made and the suggestions which have been advanced. I hesitate to detain him any longer because he has sat so patiently 'and happily all the evening, but I should like to say a few things concerning the remarks which he has advanced. With regard to the Committee on Persistent Offenders, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and which was appointed by his predecessor, Mr. Clynes, I gather from him that he expects the report will be in his hands almost immediately, if it is not already in his hands. Will the report, after the right hon. Gentleman has had time to peruse it, be published and made available to the general public, or will it be retained as a private document?
I cannot help feeling, however, that, in spite of the generally sympathetic answer we have had from the right hon. Gentleman, it was worth while our raising these points this evening, because we on this side of the Committee were anxious to raise the general question of the prison system as such. I do not feel even now that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, sympathetic as it was, quite gives us the measure of reassurance we should like to feel. I subscribe in full to what the right hon. Gentleman said when he intimated to the Committee that in his view a prison should give us the feeling that it helps to build up capacity and character. There are some directions still in which our prison system is open to some criticism. I do not, for the purpose of this discussion, raise the question of
the younger children, because, as hon. Gentlemen know, we have been busily occupied upstairs with the Children Bill, which has a very special reference to the future treatment of the children of the country who may become delinquent children. I believe that the Bill, when it becomes law, will be no small contribution to the proper treatment of those children. I will not discuss that matter any further.
10.0 p.m.
I am concerned with the older people. I can speak with some intimate knowledge of this problem. I sometimes fear lest we should sometimes appear to be a party of ex-convicts on this side of the Committee as so many of us speak with specialised knowledge of the problem. I wonder if hon. Gentlemen who sometimes bemoan the fact that we are in danger of making our gaols a little too comfortable have ever visualised or imagined the effect upon an individual prisoner passing through the huge doors in a huge wall and the doors closing firmly and irrevocably behind him. I wonder if they could have the knowledge to enable them to realise that, having gone inside those doors, the individual prisoner is speedily reminded of the fact that he has been a sinner against society and that for a period of time he has to lose his personal identity inside the prison walls. It is that loss of identity, that crushing, as my right hon. Friend said, of the human personality which seems so much in need of correction in association with our modern prison system. Whether the period be short or whether it be long, the individual concerned must return to society, and we ought to be able so to devise our system, improved as it is to-day, I candidly confess, as to enable the individual to face society once again stronger in character and in capacity.
I do not know how many Members of the Committee have seen a prison from the inside, but one of the great tragedies of our prison system, taken as a whole, is that the person in charge of the individual, the warder, an excellent fellow in his way, but a human being like ourselves, with the same limitations as ourselves, however kindly he may be, is not a person who is trained for the particular job of studying the individual in his charge. The system itself tends to
make him somewhat machine-like in his attention to his work. It tends to make him regard his charges as so many marbles in a row. There is no training for him in advance of beginning upon his task to enable him to study, from the psychological point of view, the difficulties from which the individual convict suffers. I have a strong feeling—it has been with me for years, since I saw the system at very close quarters—that our present system will fall short of its proper purpose until we have recruited our warder staff—I make no attack upon them as a class, for they are doing their best under their limitations—from a better equipped class of individuals who will have some knowledge of the psychology of the human mind. I feel sure that if the individual warder could study the individual personality in his charge the result would be far better in the interests of society, and the individual concerned, upon emerging from prison, would be in a far stronger position to perform his future duties as a citizen, and I think that the system would very speedily justify itself far more than is now the case.
Apart from the question of the warders, I should like to make an appeal in regard to the nature of the work done by prisoners. I wonder if hon. Members realise what a dreadfully distressing task many prisoners have to do. I will give my own experience, for what it is worth. For six weeks on end I had nothing else to deal with except long strips of canvas, trying to cut out a piece of a strip of cloth in a particular shape. Can hon. Members imagine anything more utterly depressing than doing that for hours on end, day after day and week after week? The extraordinary thing is that when people emerge from prison they have any mental strength left. In my own case so vicious was the effect that I had a very serious breakdown, which lasted many weeks. I have recovered, and now I am able to speak on behalf of others. I do not want others to suffer as I did. I realise that you cannot entirely eliminate the punitive element, but I do feel that we could give these people work far more interesting, far less depressing and far lees demoralising than is the work which is so often done inside our prisons.
The right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) spoke about the
terribly depressing effect of dressing everybody alike in gaol. It is the most frightful outfit that it is possible to see. The Home Secretary said that these are days of economy, and I said to myself: "What crimes are still committed in the name of economy!" Supposing that we are passing through days of economoy, is there anything to prevent a prison being so equipped that the men themselves could make some of the cloth? In some prisons that I have seen cloth was made. That was an infinitetly more interesting job than the job with which I was associated during my time in prison. We are assured that there has been a change in regard to hours, and I am glad to hear it, but do not let us toe under any misapprehension. When the convict is taken out of his cell it is not into the open air. He goes into a sort of central hall, where he is brought into association. He has to sit a yard apart from his neighbour and is not allowed to say anything. What association is there in that? Why do we need to insist upon the repressive method of insisting upon silence?
I believe that the rule of silence has been relaxed to some extent in late years, but it is still in existence. The most natural thing is to interchange opinions and ideas. When a man is in prison for a month or two or three months and is obliged to observe silence and then suddenly he is flung out into the world and the rule of repression is suddenly removed, the tendency is such that in the presence of this sudden freedom he loses his sense of proportion, bursts the bonds of discretion and loses control of himself. I am glad to hear that the system has developed whereby evening classes and other forms of entertainment are provided in prison. This new development is regarded by many people as being somewhat namby-pamby towards the prisoners. But even if a prisoner is in a class for an hour or at a lecture for an hour, it is only one hour out of the 24. Surely, that is not too much to allow a man to enable him to get some contact with the best that other minds can offer to him.
Therefore, while I rejoice in the substantial changes that have taken place in recent years there is still considerable need for reform in the system that remains. It is even yet too exclusively punitive and too little reformative. It is
the reformative side that must be emphasised. We ought not to say to a prisoner: "You must abandon hope inside this building." We ought rather to say: "It is true that you have sinned, but there is a chance still for you to take your place among your fellow men." I believe that by the recasting of our prison system along that line it will enable the prison system to be relieved of its most unhappy associations and prison will discharge a far better function than it has hitherto discharged.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Undersecretary of State mention the question of books to his right hon. Friend? It might be said that if books were sent in some mischief might be done, but would it not be possible for friends to send the money to the Prison Commissioners and allow the Prison Commissioners to buy the books? I very earnestly suggest that this is a real matter of importance in the lives of those in our prisons.

Mr. STANLEY: I will certainly bring that matter to the notice of my right hon. Friend, who will be delighted to learn that the right hon. Gentleman has some friends who will be disposed to send money. There is one specific point to which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) may require an answer, and that is in regard to the report of the Committee on Juvenile Offenders. That report will be presented to the Home Secretary for his consideration and it will be for him to decide whether or not it shall be published. It has not yet been received, but it is almost invariably the custom that reports of this kind are made available.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to. —[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes after Ten o'clock.